Question: Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: 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...

Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: 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.

Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: 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.

Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: I believe that animals should be used for scientific and commercial purposes( animal testing). Con must argue against.Acceptance first

Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: 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?

Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: Thanks Pro. I. Preface My case is mostly going to concentrate on the morality of the issue of animal testing. Virtually all arguments for and against animal testing are reducible to claims about morality and well-being. I take the position that they are both connected, and that the benefits if animal testing so not outweigh the negative effects that are resultant, and extended from the presuppositions of positive animal testing. II. Plagiarism I have never had somebody plagiarise against me like this in a debate before, and I am not sure how to react, but I think this warrants pointing out. Almost the entirety of Pro's opening round is plagiarised, copy pasted verbatim, from existing websites. I have nothing against paraphrasing and referencing, but this is literal word-for-word and easily checkable with google. Pro's sources: 1. http://animal-testing.procon.org... 2. http://ca-biomed.org... And Pro's opening contentions: 1. Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments - Copied from Source 1 2. There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system - Copied from Source 2 3. Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing - Copied fro, Source 2 4. Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to... - Copied from Source 1 5. The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest... - Copied from Source 1 6. Relatively few animals are used in research... - Copied from Source 1 7. But why don't we use humans instead of animals? - Copied from Source 1 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. With that out of the way, I expect Pro to construct and bring her own arguments forward for the next round, now I will present my own. For now I will present my own case and address Pro's arguments in my rebuttal rounds. III. Harming sentient beings without consent is immoral As humans, one of the most basic moral acts is to consider the well-being of other conscious beings. This is axiomatically true, and to deny this axiom leads to one's own self-destruction. With this in hand the argument becomes quite simple. It is immoral to deliberately impinge on the well-being of a conscious being Animal testing deliberately impinges in the well being of a conscious being C. Animal testing is immoral Note that this doesn't quite get us to the conclusion and also runs into issues of liberties and rights. But the argument remains valid and a Pro needs to contend this. We can expand the issue further, that if we have a society, or culture that sees animal testing as moral, then we devalue an animal's rights & liberties. We essentially deprioritize an animal's well-being over out fellow species'. 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. I would argue that it is within our capabilities now to generally have a say on what the state of well-being of animals are, given the research on depression, love, pain, and even addition have all come up with positive results.[1] Therefore, Pro needs to content there is a rational and justifiable explanation as to why an animal's well-being should not be prioritised as highly as a human's well-being, given that we know they have comparable capabilities of pain and suffering, and will also evidently value their own well-being. IV. Knock-On effects Let's assume we grant ourselves the right of our own well-being at the expense of animals, where does that leave us? Well, I would like to let Pro's own charts speak on my behalf, billions of chickens are slaughtered every year for food, along with millions in other livestock. Most of which are born and bred in captivity in conditions optimised for profit (and hence human well-being) at the expense of animals. 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. All things considered, very uncharitable consequences would appear insignificant to us and place most of society in ignorance of what is occurring behind the scenes. Sound familiar? Yes, this is real. V. Alternative solutions/Perspective Medical research had made significant advancements, and hence in vivo testing in animals is far less 'necessary' then it once was. 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.[2] In vitro testing can go a long way to determining efficacy, toxicity and putative pharmacokinetics of a new drug, and for drug trials, human trials are inevitably necessary anyway. A drug that had passed through phase IV. trials (and this is viable for market) has been tested on hundreds of humans anyway. 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? The difference between trialling in humans and on animals is that humans are capable of giving consent, and accepting the discomfort, and risks involved in testing. Moreover they are more viable for incentives, for undergoing the risks and inconvenience of trials, which gives a positive moral 'payback'. Animals in the other hand, simply do not have a choice in the matter, they are bred and forced to undergo testing against their wishes, much like our livestock and bred and slaughtered against their wishes. VI. Cosmetics/Medicines All of what I have said so far is directed at pharmaceutical testing, but the resolution also encompasses cosmetics and food testing. The same reasoning provided so far in this debate applies to cosmetics testing, except Pro simply doesn't have a leg to stand on in vested long term well-being interests. There simply isn't a moral reason to perform cosmetic & food testing on animals. It is Pro's burden to demonstrate this to be false. VII. Conclusion 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. Pease provide your arguments in the next round so I may provide a cogent rebuttal VIII. References 1. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org... 2. http://www.neavs.org...

Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research Content: I have found so many flaws with your argument I'm just going to argue them all in short, two or three sentence arguments and then get on with my stuff."It could mean that in a test they use five or six at a time...just to clear that up."And how is that any better? That just makes it worse. Why do they test five or six at a time if the drug might fail anyway?! It's just another flaw in animal testing. Also, I have a LINK to back that up. So yes, I do get the concept."it might be necessary to sacrifice some non-sential life for the good of sentient ones."Animals have just as much right, if not more, to live on this planet than we do. Who is to say that animals aren't important? Who says humans are the most important? If anything, we are the least important, because we are destroying the environment. We haven't done anything to make this world a better place except for us. If anything, that quote is just selfish."Humans are not JUST animals."So neither are bunnies. Or horses. Or rats. What is your definition of "just an animal?" Sure, we're by far the smartest, but we are animals."We should do everything in our power to advance our kind." And why shouldn't any other animal have the right to do that, too?! "The rest our made up of other small primates."Earlier, you said that "95% are mice and rats." First off, it's 85% [1], not 95%, and second off, that means 15,000,000 animals aren't rodents, but rather bunnies, dogs, moneys, cats, fish, and in rare cases, frogs [1]. And what difference does it make that rodents are being tested? Because they're not cute and useless? Mice are cute and useful, and rats get rid of many insects. We need both of them for much more than animal testing."Shortening a life that is only 2-3 years in it of it self is completely minuscule."And when you multiply it by about 85,000,000...That's about 170,000,000 years of rodent life right there. And maybe, by a LONG shot, 250,000 human life years. That just does not add up. And I'm not going to get into the 7-year life of dogs and bunnies, let alone the long life of a cat."The following disease have had medicines made from animal research. Breast Cancer, Childhood Leukemia, Lung Cancer, (Prolonged life of people with) AIDs and HIV, Heart Disease, Diabetes"Then why does my brother still have diabetes? Why am I reading of so many deaths from AIDS, about 1.9 million? [2]? What's the use of "prolonging a life for 2 or three years," like you said? Does that only apply to humans? And heart disease is a huge problem, and breast cancer isn't getting much better. And lung cancer is still a death sentence.And now onto another few of my arguments.1. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans. [3]Would you think about that for a second? 95% of drugs that are potentially safe fail in humans. So that means that in less than 5% of the time, it is useful when they get a good sign. That means that just a few things in animals are the same as in humans. Just think about that. 88% of doctors agreed that animal testing is useless because of differences between humans and animals (this is said by the [3] link also.) Oh, and one more thing. 61% of all birth defects are due to drugs that passed in animals. Birth defects are up 200x since the post war times... when animal testing started. Every fact here is said by the [3] link.2. Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin." [4]As you said, rats take up 85% of the animal testing population. And yet they have a small chance of successfully identifying what causes cancer in humans and how solve it. Scientists LITERALLY say they would be better off flipping a coin. This is more of a point than an argument, so I will have a second section to it.Second section: What humans suffer due to failed testsLast year, 106,000 people were killed due to medical issues due to tests of animal products. Each year, 2.1 million people are in the hospital due to medical treatments. An estimated 70,000 people in the UK are severely injured or KILLED by drugs that pass in animal testing. Wow. This is only per year.3. So this isn't murder?Every day, we sea murder controversy on the internet or a suspect getting jailed for killing a human, which is seen by many, if not all, as the worst possible thing that a human could do. What about killing thousands of ANIMALS per day? Why is that not a sin, or illegal, like murder? Do we really think that we are so highly above the animals that we should get to do that? If one person is jailed for killing another person, or possibly receiving a death sentence, why shouldn't a scientist be doing it? Let's take a look:Scientists are "doing it for a good cause," killing many to save one. Murder is "also for a good cause" then. Killing one to reduce world's problems by one. It is reducing the amount of people on the Earth. If you are for animal testing, you are kind of for murder. I know I'm not for murder. And I know that I'm not for animal testing. This is what we are doing by testing animals. Look it in the eye and say, "I'm sure it doesn't hurt one little bit." THANK YOU FOR READING AND GOD BLESS!!! :)[1] http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org...[2] http://www.who.int...[3] http://www.animalliberationfront.com...[4] http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...

Title: Animal Testing Content: Animals should, and must, be used for research because, animals are the only other living organisms that are closely related enough to humans to be able to test, animals hold the key to understanding scientific discoveries that impact human medical conditions, and the scientific discoveries found by using lab-test animals helps save lives and can improve the quality of life for many people. Humans must test drugs on "something" to see if it will work. That "something" should be a living organism. We can not test drugs in rocks, so we use animals. Some people ask why don"t we test drugs in humans? First, because testing drugs in humans is considered inhumane. The outcomes for drug testing is unpredictable and could have mild to severe side effects. Also, in many cases, the test animals must be monitored and kept in a controlled experiment. This would be hard to do for people with responsibilities to their families and jobs. Second, many drug tests fail, again causing harm or death to the lab animal. What seems more detrimental would be to use humans as test cases. Unfortunately, Nazis used humans as test subjects. That part of world history is atrocious. The inhumanity that the Jewish people endured in the name of science should never happen again. Author James Morcan writes, "The ends justify the means mindset has been the impetus behind many a cruel medical or social experiment" (Goodreads) Using lab test animals is the only way at this point in science to help advance medical knowledge and improve the quality of life for people without having to use people as test subjects. It is true that "More than 90 percent of basic science discoveries from experiments on animals fail to lead to human treatments"(2018, peta). However, the ten percent that does succeed are huge scientific discoveries. One huge discovery, for example, is Ketamine. Ketamine is also known as a brand name called Ketalar. This medication is used as anesthesia at the start of surgery and throughout surgery. Ketalar is a key medicine that allows surgeons to operate because it puts a person in a trance-like state, provides pain relief, sedates people, and creates short-term memory loss of the surgical experience (Wikipedia). When this drug was made it was tested on zebrafish. The scientists that tested this drug had tanks full of zebrafish; furthermore, within each tank, the water had different amount of this drug in it. If too much drug was in the water the fish "mutated." You don"t really want to create mutated humans, do you? Ketamine is now a life saving substance that when tested on animals had its faults, but that doesn't make it any less of a life saver. What would happen if scientists immediately stopped using lab animals as test subjects? Frankie Trull, president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) has an answer for this. She says, "An immediate end to animal research in the U.S. would be a death sentence for millions of people around the world." If you have ever taken a drug for any medical reasons, you can thank the animals that had there life lost or had there life changed through these drug tests. For example, penicillin is an antibiotic medicine that has had a huge impact on society. Penicillin was discovered by research scientist Sir Alexander Fleming in 1928 who tested it on animals first to make sure that it was non-toxic to humans. Then in 1940, Sir Howard Florey tested penicillin on mice infected with bacteria and found out that the mice that were given penicillin survived. Because of what these two scientist discovered through these tests on lab mice, doctors are now able to prescribe this antibiotic to save people"s lives. Without penicillin and other antibiotics, the number of people dying from infections each year would be significantly higher. Drugs used for medical purposes change the lives of others for the better and can save human lives. Without animals to test drugs on we have two options. One, use humans as blatant test dummies. Or two, give humans drugs when necessary and get information off of their suffering. Animals must be used for research to improve our lives and the development of the human race because animals are a necessary test subject, animals are the key to scientific discoveries, and the scientific discoveries found by using lab-test animals helps save lives and improve the quality of life for many people. "The contributions of animal research to medical science and human health are undeniable... When the majority of scientists see the work as scientifically justified, and so do the many professional medical and scientific organizations, the expert views cannot be simply dismissed based on wild claims of ulterior motives, self-interest and conspiracy theories" (2017, Pro-con). We have been teasing animals since the ancient greeks (Wiki), so why stop now?

Title: should animals be used for scientific research Content: 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.

Title: Animals should be tested on Content: Animals should not be tested on. Did you know: 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." [35] Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." [47] The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. [48, 49] 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. [65, 102] The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 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. [26] In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. [15] Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [15, 50, 51] Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. [50]

Title: Animals should be used for Medical Research Content: 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?

Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: 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.

Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research Content: I am not a strong supporter of any animal groups such as PETA, but I still think that animal testing should be banned. And I will proceed to tell you why, but first, I will argue with you on your points. "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. " Therefore, you prefer the girl to die? But I thought you were on the other side. "Would you rather a albino rat die or a young girl with leukemia die? "I don't think that you understand animal testing thoroughly. One lab rat isn't going to provide the key to a strong vaccination. Thousands of animals have to be tortured, tested, and killed. And it usually takes a lot longer than a day to get a scientific breakthrough. If one lab rat could find the cure to cancer, then I'd be all for it. But I'm going to dig a bit deeper into the statistics. As a population, the whole world uses up to THREE every SECOND for testing. That's. .. 274,000 per day, 100 million per year [1]. Yep. That's right. 3 per second. I don't know how you can be possibly for this, even with all of the PROS that it does have. .. which actually isn't anything besides cures. Now for my own arguments, which I have stacked up like a pile of books waiting to fall over. Argument 1: The cost of testing is around $136 million per year [1]We are spending way too much on something we shouldn't even be doing in the first place. If you think your taxes are going mostly towards roads and schools, that is wrong. A ton of it is going to animal testing. If we just stop animal testing, we wouldn't have to pay as much money and tons of innocent animals would be saved from the harm that animal testing causes them. Argument 2: They feel pain, too! Since the beginning of time, animals felt pain. We feel pain. Every living thing (that has a brain) feels pain. Imagine if that was you. How would you feel? Because this is exactly what we are doing to the animals. We know they feel pain, and yet we continue to do what we do. Even in extremely painful procedures, animals are not given anything, like drugs that we are given so we don't feel any pain during surgery [2]. They also can't express their pain to us, so even if a drug passes in an animal, they can't express how much the drug hurt them. If they could talk, we would all be crying because of how much pain in felt. Argument 3: Why is a human life more valued than an animals life? Well? Have an answer? I do. It shouldn't be. Humans are just animals too, we just don't realize it. At the most, a humans life MIGHT, in the best of circumstances, be worth two tested animals. But more than 100 million animals are used yearly to find a cure for something. In ten years, that is a billion. Say the flu shot saves 500,000 in the U. S from getting the flu. 36,000 of them would die [3]. Another 4 million who get the shot wouldn't be sick that year. 36,000 human lives= 1,000,000,000 animal lives? Nope. 36,000 human lives= 36,000 animal lives? That's a bit better. But it's still pretty outrageous. To conclude, I said why pros arguments were wrong and stated three of mine with links to prove my points. Thank you for reading so far and God Bless! !! :)[1] . http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...[2] . https://sites.google.com...[3] . http://www.npr.org...

Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: 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.

Title: Animal testing should be banned Content: 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.

Title: Animal Rights Content: Estimated 26 million animals are used for commercial and scientific testing every year in the U.S. Used to determine the toxicity of medication and to develop medical treatments, that is destined for human use. How come we allow these creatures to be tortured and killed? People might think it is a necessary evil to improve the survival of the human race. They might be right too but researches have figured out that animals are a lot more like us. The animals have feelings just like us. They can feel the same pain as we can and I find it is hard to understand why people fail to see that. It has been proven that pigs can feel pain, affection, excitement, experience stress and even feel love. They can get depressed very easily if they are denied to interact with each other or isolated. How is that different from us? Won't we feel depressed if we don't interact with other people? Yes, these tests on animals have saved human lives but for what costs? Millions upon millions of animals that are caged and tortured their entire life. Some of these medications do not even work in the end. The animals died for nothing at all. I can't help but think what if human beings were caged and tortured for experiments?

Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research Content: "A ton of it is going to animal testing." This is a weak point because the funding to the sciences as is is little enough, and the information is worth much more than the costs of testing. Only a fraction of tax money is even going to animal testing at all and it is a ludicrous notion that 136 Million is a lot, "Total federal revenues were $2.16 trillion in fiscal year 2010" I did the math and exactly 0.00629% of tax dollars. Your pain argument is also ludicrous. You make a moral claim, but I could make a moral equilibrium by saying there pain is justified by the pain it saves us from. You are recommending rats are equal to us, " At the most, a humans life MIGHT, in the best of circumstances, be worth two tested animals. But more than 100 million animals are used yearly to find a cure for something." We are far beyond rats in an evolutionary perspective. Furthermore " rats get rid of many insects." is an invalid point because A. Rats carry insects that harm us as well and B. Rats in labs are bred especially for the purpose of testing, and otherwise wouldn't have been born. We kill so many rats a year to further our knowledge of science and to save lives. Rats wiped out huge portions of the european population with the black plague for none because they didnt know what they were doing, becasue they are RATS. "Mice share more than 98% DNA with humans, therefore, animals are susceptible to many of the same health problems as humans." [3] and you said "That means that just a few things in animals are the same as in humans." which is simply not true. The genetic similarities of mice and men is outstandingly close, and we use mice the most when researching. You said that "95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans." Which is irrelevant considering that all of the major medicines developed in the past 5 years have used animals. Also you said, and I quote, "rats take up 85% of the animal testing population." Which is not true, I never said that, I said "Around 95% of all animals that are being tested are specially bred rats and mice" I said rats and mice, meanwhile of that percentage only 18% are rats. That rabbit you pulled up has no sources whatsoever and as far as I know is probably used in testing hair products, which we aren't debating. You are simply trying to evoke emotions in the voters, thats not passion thats manipulation. Also your post about the murder is completely invalid. The reason humans are worth more than the mice being tested is that we are smarter! We aren't just small minded eating machines, he are thoughtful individuals that come together and form solutions to the problems regarding our race, like cancer, and those solutions often involve the testing of animals You said that your brother has diabetes. Want to know what keeps him alive? Insulin. And want to know how they made that? By animal testing. 1[http://www.dummies.com...] 2[http://www.history.com...] 3[http://ca-biomed.org...]

Title: Animal testing Content: We should test on animals

Title: animals should stop being used as testing subjects Content: 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.

Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research Content: While I admit the analogy of the girl was far fetched, it was an example. DEFENSE 1- According to the website [http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...] you got the "the whole world uses up to three every second" example, I don't think you got the concept. Just because they use a certain amount per year, 100 million. That doesn't mean they kill one every 3 seconds just for the hell of it, it could mean that in a test they use five or six at a time...just to clear that up. DEFENSE 2- Then we shall try and test on them in the least painful way possible. However, since thats often impossible, it might be necessary to sacrifice some non-sential life for the good of sentient ones. Furthermore, I feel you are trying to evoke emotions in me, but I am just as passionate about this as you are about that. DEFENSE 3- Humans are not JUST animals. I am not saying we AREN'T animals but we are also more than that, we have the most complex brains in the animal kingdom and more importantly- WE are human, and we should do everything in our power to advance our kind. Argument 1- Around 95% of all animals that are being tested are specially bred rats and mice, .25% our Non-Human Primates. The rest our made up of other small primates. The reason rodents are so popular is because of there short life spans which allow for speedier disease development in the rodents. Shortening a life that is only 2-3 years in it of it self is completely minuscule compared to the amount of years of human lives they can be saving. The following disease have had medicines made from animal research. Breast Cancer Childhood Leukemia Lung Cancer (Prolonged life of people with) AIDs and HIV Heart Disease Diabete And many more! The rodents save lives. 1[http://www.mofed.org...] 2[http://www.amprogress.org...]

Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: 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...

Title: Experimenting on animals for science purposes shouldn't be banned Content: Assalamualaikum (May Peace Be Upon You)first of all i'm very grateful to finally find someone (since this is my first debate).All i want is just a debate not a conflict.Missbailey8 delivered some powerful arguments i can't deny. She seems to understand the topic perfectly, but i disagree with some of her arguments.Rebuttal 1: A. Animal Testing is harmful to the subjectsA. In the United States, animal testing on vertebrates is primarily regulated by the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (AWA), and the Animal Welfare Regulations which is enforced by the Animal Care division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The AWA contains provisions to ensure that individuals of covered species used in research receive a certain standard of care and treatment, provided that the standard of care and treatment does not interfere with "the design, outlines, or guidelines of actual research or experimentation."[1]. Every scientist has a license to experiment on these animals, and every licensed scientist must obey the rules/regulations on experimenting with animals.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 is also banned. The 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.[2]Rebuttal 2: B. Animals are very different from humansB. If it's not with animals then with what?, Homo sapiens is one of the member of animal kingdom and according to evolution, animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. [3]Rebuttal 3: C. Drugs tested on animals aren't always safeC. First thing that thought was animals experiment not just benefits human but also benefits the species of that animals them self. I remembered Kin selection which is astrategy that favours the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to the organism's own survival and reproduction. [4] How do animals benefit from animal research? The same methods that have been developed to prevent and treat diseases in humans have improved the lives of countless animals.Vaccines, antibiotics, anesthetics, surgical procedures, and other approaches developed in animals for human use are now commonly employed throughout veterinary medicine. Pets, livestock, and animals in zoos live longer, more comfortable, and healthier lives as a result of animal research.[5] MY POINT:"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone" that was Charles Darwin's word. I don't mean to be cruel or inhumane but "Animals other than human beings do not have basic rights. It is a matter of ethics and not of the laws of human societies that animals ought to be treated compassionately and kindly by people because people can empathize with their pain but not because they have rights as human beings do. If they had such rights, they would, among other things, have to be held accountable for killing or maiming fellow animals in the wilds."[6]Examples of Benefits:1.Smallpox (cow) has now been eradicated from earth, 2.Polio has been eradicated from North America and people in countries all over the world are being successfully treated (mouse and monkey). 3.Insulin is now able to help control diabetes (dog, fish). There are vaccines for tetanus (horse), rubella (monkey),anthrax (sheep), and rabies (dog, rabbit). 4.An understanding of the Malaria life cycle (pigeon), 5.tuberculosis (cow, sheep),6.Typhus (guinea pig, rat, mouse), 7.and the function of neurons (cat, dog).The discovery of anticoagulants (cat), penicillin (mouse), open heart surgeryand cardiac pacemakers (dog), lithium (rat, guinea pig), treatment for leprosy (armadillo), organ transplantations (dog, sheep, cow, pig),laproscopic surgical techniques (pig), and a drug for AIDS treatment(monkey),e.t.c [2]ConclusionScientist purpose is to make this world a better place by many ways,this is one of the major way. Diseases had already haunted human being since the beginning, but if you banned scientist to research on animals then they will be no cure for those disease written. And also if you want to say that researches can be done just with particular organs you're wrong the human organ system is linked to each other an action of one organ can cause a reaction in other organ.I think I'm done thank you once again Missbailey8 for your contributionAssalamualaikum[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.pro-test.org.uk...[3]http://animal-testing.procon.org... [4]https://en.wikipedia.org...[5]http://www.nap.edu...[6]http://www.nytimes.com... [7]all other little information i obtained from books with title "BIOLOGY Ch 1,2,and3" written by Neil A Campbell and his team

Title: Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no) Content: I will skip to rebuttals and leave my argument to the last part if that wouldn't be a problem? P1: You say "torturing" animals but scientist don't go in front of an animal and just torch their eyes on purpose. And if they do they are not scientist they are psychopaths, but the last time i checked, i didn't see buffalo bill or the Texas chainsaw massacre guy testing animals, the experts were real scientist with real diplomas "EXPERIMENTING" on animals for a "REAL" purpose. The only things that scientists actually do in most animal tests are injections, blood sampling and surgeries. Now death may be a fate that some of the animals in tests go through but the deaths dont affect the population nor should they affect anybody. 5 million monkeys in the world and only 50 thousand are used in research not even 100 thousand its only 50. i think the monkey population isn't affected by the science. In 2001, there were estimated to be 400 million dogs in the world only 75,000 dogs are used in testing, again i never heard on a dog going extinct. there are 58,372,106 horses in the world. only 25 thousand are used for research. Now i can keep going on and on about animals but the main point im trying to say is this: Animals die, plants die, people die, you can't stop anything from death. What i am wondering is why i don't see PETA or people like you crying for the insects that get tested on as well as animals. Sure you care about that homeless dog. what about that ant hill in your back yard are you going to take them in too and feed them. While your helping those ants get some venomous snakes that help us in loads of research i'm sure they would love your help to. P2: You are just repeating P1. not a valid argument. C1: again repeating P1. What is the matter running out of stuff to say? P3(a): You never said HOW expensive is it and because of that this is not a valid argument. i am not gonna do your homework for you. Also, you only mentioned 1 experiment that was "unreliable" there are BILLIONS of experiment P3(b): You are just reapeating again and again on your other points so again, not valid. And i would like to rebuttal your rebuttals. i would like to tell you about the AWA also known as the Animal Welfare Act which is the only U.S. federal law that covers animals in research. Formed and signed in 1966, it regulates the care and use of animals in research, testing, teaching, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. I will also like to add that this law states that it is REQUIRED that animal testing MUST HAPPEN before a human can eat it, drink it, inject it. Now i would like to tell you that there are 7 billion people in the world. 300 million people live in the U.S. now awnser me this Sashil: are you willing to risk YOUR life, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR SPOUSE, YOUR CHILDREN LIVES, to save animals that cause 3 million deaths of HUMAN people per year?Ii know you want to save milo and otis and all the other animals out there... but is it really worth it? http://www.neavs.org... http://www.animalaid.org.uk... google.com http://www.peta.org... http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...

Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: Thanks you, Pro. This debate should be fun. In response to the two questions Pro poses in Round 1: 1) No, they would probably not lay down their life for their pet, but they would also probably not lay down their life for anyone. There is a reason that killing someone in self-defense is not the moral equivalent of killing someone to steal their money. The difference lies in the intention: in one case you kill someone to save your own life. Killing animals, pets, whatever, makes sense when there is a direct threat to your own life. 2) Pro's second question already presupposes that testing our "vaccinations" and other "crucial experiments" on animals works. Before we can ask if their are alternatives to using animals for testing, we have to know whether testing on animals is relevant to human health in the first place. Of course, the answer is that animal testing has not been relevant to advancements in medicine or human health. In an article published in the esteemed "Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine," the very notion itself was debunked. In the article, it was pointed out that "animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses." Furthermore, there is the obvious fact that animal biology is very different from human biology, and therefore, is unreliable. The FDA has noted that 92 percent of drugs shown to be safe and effective animal tests fail in human trials because they don't work or are dangerous to humans. It has been shown that physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species. Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits; aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys; and morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. The point is, using animals for our experiments has no medical value for us, because it is simply unreliable. Animal biology is different from ours.

Title: Animal testing Content: Come on

Title: animal expirimentation Content: Animals Needs to be Heard "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we would all be vegetarian." ( McCartney). Not having animal testing would be unrealistic. But minimizing it could cause no harm. Technology gets better and better every day and could save many lives. Laboratory scientist should cut back on animal testing because it is harmful and deadly for them. By not using that many animals for scientific experiments humans could save more lives and not let animal"s lives to go to waste.26 million animals in the United States are used every year to do research. With that many animals being tested on many of them die or are permanently affected with all the dangerous chemicals that get injected into their bodies. Proponents of animal testing say many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals are very difficult to find. Many of these chemicals are never even approved for humans. At the same time many scientist believe that in order to cure diseases like Alzheimer"s a few animals should die if it is for a greater cause. "Animals do not have the cognitive ability or moral judgment that humans do and because of this they have been treated differently than humans by nearly every culture throughout recorded history. But we could still achieve great things without animals being affected. Equally important, our bodies and animals bodies are different. Something that can be harmful to a rat might not be for humans. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. "Pick any drug you"ve heard of; it was probably tested on by rats. But there is significant room for improvement," (Ericson). Knowing that animals and humans are not perfectly alike humans should not put that many animals lives at risk. However many scientist believe that with a rats body being only 95% different then human that it is worth risking their life if that means getting closer to making it safer for humans by just adjusting a few things. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. But even with all those similarities that doesn"t make it okay to risk their lives just for a lipstick. When humans cut back man should not use animals to be tested on for cosmetics but instead diseases but before they should be researched and for sure that it will not cause that animals excruciating pain or there life. At the same time technology gets better. "Advanced computer-modeling techniques can be used instead of animals in disease research, drug development and chemical testing" (Clippinger). This makes cutting back on animal testing that much easier. Also computer-models have already started to save millions of animals suffering from deadly chemicals. Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace animals. Besides technology there are options such as artificial human skin, which is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. But even with all these amazing new discoveries the need for animal experimentation will stand. Laboratory scientist might not be able to stop animal testing 100% but they should try to minimize on the amount of animals used. The world is changing every day, and if the future is getting brighter for humans by cutting back, humans could also make it brighter for all the animals as well.

Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research Content: 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.

Title: Animal Testing should be allowed Content: For your arguments. Now I will try best to counter it. " 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. " Well, As my worthy opponent says that a good deal of animals are used in the food industry, Pro, fails to realise that food industry is a high breeding industry too and no harm to the subsistence of animals is done in this industry. Does it mean that people are killing plants ruthlessly and causing extinction of wheat and rice plants? No. That is called agriculture and rearing animals for commercial purposes is called animal husbandry. (1) (1)en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Animal_husbandryR06; " 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! " And nothing will happen to the population of the animals? A common example of what animal testing leads to is the situation of the Tokay gecko. (2)(3) (2). http://www.dw.de... (3)www. tokaygeckos. org/tokay-gecko-fact-sheetR06; What happens is that when a species of animal is thought to have some medicinal cures, it is researched upon. slowly, the demand of this species grows and people come to know about it. Frequently, these species are found in areas which are full of poor people. Catching these animals and supplying them to buyers gives a lot of money. So, everyone follows the rule of catching these animals and selling them for money. This happens recklessly and the population of these animals go down in a constant rate leading to their extinction. Tokay Geckos are researched on to find an HIV cure. While Top scientists say that it is in vain. Many have taken this research as a hope to find a cure. .. some for the welfare. .. and some for the money. The greed to earn money is leading to the extinction of beautiful animals. Think about it. If Human beings have fundamental rights, should the animals also not have some basic rights? At Least the right to LIVE? Tiger was first hunted as a game, gradually the GOVT. took steps. Later, they were researched on. GOVT. scientist said that tiger doesn't contain any medicinal factors and research on them was banned but is the tiger safe today? Nope. People who believe that tiger can be used to cure cancer are still researching on them by illegal means. Poachers are still prevalent. Tiger reserves are proving to be useless. The count of tiger in the whole world is >3200! ! In such situations, should animal testing be actually allowed?

Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: 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.

Title: Animal testing for medical research Content: 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!

Title: should animals be used for scientific research Content: Pro has not upheld his BoP. His various contentions are merely conjecture. Let's take a look at them one by one.- "it is not possible to develop drugs or perform many different sorts of important scientific investigation without animal research"First, Pro doesn't go into detail on what exactly these types of scientific investigation even are. Is he referring to testing hair products or cancer drugs, we don't know. Secondly, since Pro has been so incredibly vague on the nature of scientific research which he is referring to, he has in no way actually backed up those assertions.- "You wouldn't test on humans so the next best thing is animals"This is also unsupported. Why can't we test on humans? On the contrary, it would seem to be a better idea since (a) humans would seem prima facie more comparable to other humans in determining the result of experimentation and (b) humans can actually give their consent, freeing one of the various ethical dilemmas brought on b forced testing on animals.

Title: Animal Testing Content: Test

Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: 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...

Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research Content: May I start out by saying this is one of the best debates I have ever been in and it has been a really fun experience for me. Thank you for starting this debate and we should do this again sometime!Now, for my final arguments!"Total federal revenues were $2.16 trillion in fiscal year 2010" I did the math and exactly 0.00629% of tax dollars."I thought you might say that. That is only what it is costing us, the taxpayers. What is it costing the government? Think about that."Your pain argument is also ludicrous. You make a moral claim, but I could make a moral equilibrium by saying there pain is justified by the pain it saves us from."I'm sorry, but that is just heartless. Do you have no pity?! There is LITERALLY a video of a monkey being stuck in a tube and dying, which was one of my links in the last article. It saves about 5 million of us and takes 100 million of them (as stated in previous arguments) that, last time I checked, is not equal. "B. Rats in labs are bred especially for the purpose of testing, and otherwise wouldn't have been born."Therefore, we are breeding animals just to kill them? I think not being born is a bit better than a full life of pain and misery. "Because they are RATS."In every round, you have made an argument against a rat. At LEAST three times. You have failed to notice that only 18% are rats, as YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID. You have made no arguments against animals that don't carry diseases and that we love. If I didn't know any better, I would say your whole argument is revolving around rats. Look, rats are animals too and deserve to be treated with at least a LITTLE respect!"Which is irrelevant"It is not irrelevant because failed animal testing has KILLED people! If you think so highly of humans, why have you not addressed the fact that it is killing us, too? "Around 95% of all animals that are being tested are specially bred rats and mice"And I corrected you with 85% of the time. Did you just scan my argument or thoroughly read it?"That rabbit you pulled up has no sources whatsoever and as far as I know is probably used in testing hair products."Check out the source at the bottom [1]. And the title says "Animal Testing." How am I supposed to know what "Animal Testing" means to you? And how do you know that it was hair product? It might very well be for medical purposes."You are simply trying to evoke emotions in the voters"I am trying to show them what we are doing, and trying to make some points. You are free to include some pictures, also. It is good debating skills to include pictures and you can't change that."We aren't just small minded eating machines."...Wow. Do you really hate animals that much? What did they ever do to you?"Want to know what keeps him alive? Insulin. And want to know how they made that? By animal testing."Insulin was "discovered" in 1869 by research [2]. This was far before advanced animal testing. We made a life saving product without animal testing, and in less evolved times, so why do we have to do it today? You just proved another one of my points. I will only make one point because my opponent only made this debate three rounds, and he can't post a rebuttal. But I will end with one more point.Argument 1: We do have some alternatives, you know! [3]For my last argument, I will show that animal testing can be stopped and replaced with an alternative. Corrositex is one example. It is artificial skin that shows damages of products. That means it is not cruel and you don't have to use animal's skin for it. Another example and alternative to animal testing is computer modeling [4]. We are advanced, as you said, and computer modeling would both cut the costs for scientists AND save a ton of innocent animals. Many countries around the world are using these alternatives successfully. The rest of the world should follow in their footsteps.To sum up, my debate was against animal testing overall. I posted many rebuttals and seven arguments. Now It's all up to you, the voters, to see who you want to win. Thank you for reading and God Bless!!![1] http://www.peta.org...[2] http://www.nobelprize.org...[3] http://suite101.com...[4] http://www.newscientist.com...

Title: The Use of Animals within Scientific Research Content: 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.

Title: Animal Testing should be allowed Content: Firstly, I thank Con, for your rebuttal, and will proceed with my own. Well, you have stated that while the food industry uses an insignificant amount of animals, it does have a breeding program, for example, farms, albeit, it is unfortunate that you have not considered the fact of breeding programs also occurring in animal testing, as proved in the 'Royal Society Publishing', written by highly qualified scientists and professors. They have stated this quote, "We breed animals for four principal reasons: as sources of usable products or services; for medical or scientific research; for aesthetic, cultural or ethical consideration; and as pets", proving my point of how a small amount of animals, used for medical purposes, also enables us to advance our drugs, has a breeding program, and comparing this to the food industry who, in fact, kill more than 55 billion animals per year, according to 'The Vegan Society of Peace', and yet only do this to satisfy their taste unlike finding cures for cancer, and saving millions of lives, shows that animal testing is a great thing. This proves how animal testing is far more beneficial than all of the other industries that use animals, and how despite using a small amount of animals, as mentioned before, they advance us, as humans, so much more than all the others. Do you really want to stop animal testing? Also, I believe you have failed to comprehend my other point, (as you proved by saying, "and nothing will happen to the population of the animals?") which elaborates on, the fact, that, if we stop animal testing, the human race could possibly wipe out; and if the human race is wiped out, the food web/chain, would be out of control, distorted, which would then allow some species to die out, eventually dying out all living creatures. Animal testing would save millions of human lives, thus continuing the human race. By all means, animals are vital for our living. I do believe that animals are affected by the activities of humans. But it is unfortunate that you are slow to realise that as a result we, as humans, have a duty of care for all living things, and animal testing is essential for animals and humans to not become extinct. Also, animals that go through animal testing are not all going through pain and suffering or death. Some tests are even as simple as seeing different wet animals shake themselves. (1) Besides, even if all testing animals died, it must be considered how this is done for the benefit of us staying alive, which as mentioned before, is a must for animals to live. Many of these animals, including mice or primates, are used to test medicines which range from stopping headaches to saving lives. Under these circumstances, would you want animals to be stopped from testing? Millions of human lives depend on bettering our medication, would you rather see millions of humans dying, or 20 rats in a laboratory? Several important medical advances have been made in the twentieth century due to the testing of non-human animals. These advances in medicine could not have happened without the use of animals as testing before releasing it to common people. It must be understood that although animal testing sounds inhumane, it does, and will continue to save lives. Also, in regard to your count of tigers in the whole world, the major reason for the small population of tigers, is hunting tigers for their skin, teeth and other features. Animal testing is the least of the reasons, albeit, the diversity of the tiger count in the whole world, is quite touching, and depressing. Anyhow, even if animal testing is stopped, people will still do this illegally, for the sake of money, albeit, animal testing is not the reason for close extinction heading towards animals, the intention for animal testing is to benefit and advance our drugs, and not to end the animal races. Also, it is considered that there are alternatives than using animals for testing drugs, but if this is the truth, then why aren't any alternatives used? Why are animals considered the first option? The truth is that there are no alternatives, and there aren't any satisfactory alternatives because animals are the closest things related to humans, and for accurate medicine results, that won't kill or harm humans, we need to test our products on other creatures, which enables us to verify if the results are positive and actually work right in the living immune system of an animal, and since we cannot test an experimental medicine on a fellow human with human rights, we must test it on the other members of the animal kingdom who have immune systems. In conclusion, animal testing is extremely beneficial for both humans and animals, if we continue animal testing, we will find new cures, and save millions of lives. Animal testing is to advance drugs, population control, and morality. (1) http://www.bbc.com.... Thank you. :)

Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: 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.

Title: Animal testing for medical research Content: no

Title: Animal research is extremely tightly regulated by independent authorities Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found. Content: Thank you Blah. You are no mean debater, and I look forward to the challenge. I will be dedicating this round for my constructive case and will make formal rebuttals in later rounds. Brief Appeal to AuthorityA 2011 poll of nearly 1000 biomedical scientists showed that “more than 90% of the poll’s respondents agreed that the use of animals in research is essential”[1]Stefan Treue, head of the German Primate Centre in Göttingen says that, “after lay-people have visited his laboratory and seen how work is conducted and why, "something like 98% understand and accept that this is a small but important and irreplaceable part of biomedical science”[1] The same source goes on to note a percentage of scientists had mixed feelings on the issue of animal testing.“[A]lthough researchers overwhelmingly feel free to discuss these concerns with colleagues, many seem less at ease with doing so in public. More than 70% said that the polarized nature of the debate makes it difficult to voice a nuanced opinion on the subject, and little more than one-quarter said that their institutions offer training and assistance in communicating broadly about the importance of animal research.”[1] We do not test on animals because of some twisted sadistic pleasure in it. Scientists and even the ‘lay people’ who are given an overview of what these tests are about generally agree that the tests are irreplaceably significant. There is simply no substitute for animal testing. Mice and chimpanzees, for example, share 98-99% of a human’s genetic makeup. Animals are the only subjects other than human beings with similar enough systemic constitutions to give us our best comparative data. We shouldn’t be seeking an alternative because there is no alternative. The Importance of Animal Testing - an Anecdote The first stages to the discovery of life-saving diabetes treatment was made by Charles Best and Frederick Banting[2] by conducting tests, such as organ harvesting, on a number of dogs. One of the dogs had its pancreas cut out, and its living progress recorded over time. Banting and Best then diced up the pancreas and created a pancreatic solution which they injected into the dog. The result of these experiments and numerous trials afterward was the discovery that a certain mixture of pancreatic material, produced after numerous counts of trial and error, countered the effect of diabetes. This material, a.k.a. insulin, is a monumental discovery in biomedical science. Diabetes was known as a cureless disease with a 100% mortality that can only be delayed for 1-2 years. It is estimated that there are currently 29.1 million people in the United States who have diabetes[3]. The lives and organs of tens of dogs and hundreds of cattle in the early decades of the 20th century and the result of their sacrifice are still effectively impacting the lives of millions of people. While not all animal testing will achieve such amazing results, this anecdote serves as an example among many of the indispensability of animal test subjects. We can stare at things in petri dishes all day, but such measures simply cannot duplicate the results of testing on fully functioning living systems. If Banting and Best did not harvest the dogs’ organs, they could not possibly have found the pancreas’ essential correlations to diabetes nor would they have discovered the insulin that keeps over 20 million people living in the United States alive. Who Benefits? “Without animal research, millions of dogs, cats, birds, and farm animals would be dead from more than 200 diseases, including anthrax, distemper, rabies, feline leukemia, and canine parvo virus, according to Americans for Medical Progress (AMP), a nonprofit group that supports the responsible and humane use of animals in biomedical research. Today, those diseases are largely preventable, thanks to vaccines and treatments developed in animal research. In human terms, research with animals has led to vaccinations against smallpox, measles, mumps, diphtheria, and tetanus; development of anesthesia, antibiotics, and insulin; use of cardiac pacemakers and heart bypass surgery; surgical advancements for organ transplants, hip replacements, and cataract surgery; and treatments for a host of diseases, including diabetes, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and children’s leukemia.”[4] Of course, unless you preferred we tested hip replacements, organ transplants, anasthesia etc. on humans, non-animal alternatives such as cultured petri-dish cells aren’t going to help you find out the after-effects and survivability of animals after such operations. There’s just no practical way we can replace the functionalities of a live animal. An Alternative to Animal Testing? In order to monitor results of testing on a living system, a living system must be tested on. Only living things have living systems. Our only option, in order to duplicate results obtained from animal testing, is to test on some other living thing. But here we stumble upon a contradictory problem: all living things are animals. We test on rats and other mammals because these mammals are the closest things to the homo sapien sapien other than the homo sapien sapiens themselves. The only other alternative we have to replace animals, who already replace human beings, is to artificially create some living thing which replicates mammalian living functions; to genetically engineer another living thing. Again, we happen upon the same problem. This genetically engineered living mammal would necessarily be an animal. Testing on this animal would mean animal abuse, bringing us all the way back to the perceived problem of animal testing. I assert that any alternative method to duplicating the results of animal testing can only be animal testing. I hate to ask my opponent to present an alternative, but we simply cannot invest in a pointless venture to find an alternative if no feasible direction toward which we should go toward this alternative is presented. I assert that looking for alternatives to animal testing is a waste of valuable time and resources. Such a venture is only reasonable if we had a practical idea as to where we were going with the invested capital, but we don’t. Some Other Facts about Animal Testing. It is often suggested that since the majority of products from animal tests fail, animal tests are bad models for humans. Many of these statistics are taken out of context. Animal rights activists, when citing such statistics, often neglect other relevant data. For example, my opponent elicits an oft-cited statistic which states that 9 out of 10 or 90% of the drugs tested on animals fail in clinical studies. Many products are experimental. Of course they’re going to fail. Conductors of animal-testing experiments aren’t going to succeed with everything they try. That they so rigorously maintain a healthy skepticism on the effectiveness and safety of the majority of trial products shows is actually a good thing. Consider the following chart: 94% of all drugs that pass the animal trials fail the human trials from phase 1-3 with 86% failing after the phase trials. Note that even human trials fail at just as large a ratio as animal trials. Is this grounds to claim that human tests are bad models for humans? That’s ridiculous. These are trials. They are bound to fail, that’s what experiments are: trial and error until the desired result is attained. Living animals are the next best alternative to living humans. That’s all there is to it. “Here is where it is important to understand a little about the drug development process.Before the preclinical animal tests there are a large number of pre-preclinical non-animal tests done on all manner of research tools including computer models, automatic screening, cell cultures, microbial studies and more. These methods are used to (relatively) cheaply remove many potentially toxic, or obviously non-starting drugs from reaching the more expensive animal testing stage – greatly reducing the amount of animal research required for a drug to reach market. So contrary to animal rights claims of alternative methods being better, the truth is that 94% of drugs that pass animal AND non-animal preclinical tests will fail in human tests.So rather than damn just the animal tests, have animal rights activists managed to damn all of preclinical research? In short, no.”[5] Conclusion Animals' systems are analogous to human systems and are the closest things we have (other than humans) to test on.We simply don’t have an alternative to replace what animal testing provides.Animal testing is necessary to saving lives and alleviating pain and suffering of a larger demographic. While most of us can agree that premature death and suffering are loathsome, the reality is that these things cannot be avoided. SOURCES[1] http://www.nature.com...[2] http://www.nobelprize.org...[3] http://www.cdc.gov...[4] http://cvma.net...[5]http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...

Title: Animal Testing Content: Accepted.

Title: Animal testing Content: Good luck!

Title: Animal Testing does more harm than good Content: In my opponent's Round 2 response, there was no discernable rebuttal to my arguments in Round 1. It even appears that my opponent actually took up my position, which I welcome.Again, I want to reiterate that I do share my opponent's passion about animal rights and do believe animals should be protected by modern laws. I also believe that animals that are involved in animal research and animal testing must be treated humanely when they're not enduring these kinds of potentially painful and gruesome tests; and I think the use of animals in experiments should be avoided where they can be. This is the subject of intense debate surrounding the biomedical research field and other fields where animals are tested, such as the cosmetics industry.Preclinical Trials (Animal Testing) Are an Inescapable First Step in the Development of a Safe DrugHowever, a lot of animal research and testing is unavoidable, especially whenever scientists have to examine whether a medicine or substance is safe for human testing. Animals are used in early trials of a new medicine or chemical (or cocktail of either) because scientists first have to evaluate likely effects before the substance is used in human trials. This is done not only to evaluate potential health risks with the new medicine or chemical--including risks of death--but also to get an understanding of how the substance(s) work inside the organism, to see which systems are affected and how. Understanding how these substances work inside the organism can likewise provide scientists with a critical understanding of how these substances are likely to work within a human. In other words, the efficacy and possible side-effects of the new drug are being determined as well (obviously). There's just too much risks in going straight to human trials, and we would see potentially thousands of human fatalities/casualties before these trials produced just one effective drug. The use of animals in biomedical research is an unavoidable first step if our aim as a nation is to prevent the loss of human life altogether. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services, has to first scrutinize an experimental drug tested on animals, and deem it "reasonably safe", before it can even approve it for clinical trials (human trials) [1][2]. In fact, the FDA reports on its website that "most drugs that undergo preclinical (animal) testing never even make it to human testing" or even to the review process, because of self-evident defects [1]. Could you imagine the harm caused to human subjects if animal testing was avoided altogether?Preclinical (animal) testing is so important to the drug development process and to the assessment of a drug's potential dangers and performance that most drugs aren't tested exclusively on a single animal type, but have to be tested on several [2]. This is "because one drug can affect one species differently from another" [2]. This is an important fact to know because "some animals serve as accurate representatives of a human's anatomy, while others share identical biochemical pathways" [3]. One animal might be a perfect representative of a particular human system or organ, while another more accurately reflects a human metabolic pathway. In most instances, the use of at least two or more species in preclinical trials can't be avoided, out of human safety concerns.That's not to say that researchers are at liberty to test on an endless supply of animals in these trials. They're not. The FDA explains that drug companies are required to test on as few animals as possible, and are still obligated to ensure their humane and proper treatment [2]. There are also federal laws within the United States that explain how research animals must be treated, and what the limitations of drug companies are with respect to these animals--something which I'll cover in a following Round.Some Animal Research also Benefits Animals!It's true that most research with laboratory animals benefits humans. But some animal research has also benefited animals. Animals could not profit from this research unless testing on laboratory animals happened in the first place!According to the Foundation for Biomedical Research, animal testing has led to "life-saving and life-extending treatments for cats, dogs, farm animals, wildlife and endangered species" [4]. Vaccinations for rabies, tetanus, feline leukemia, distemper, parvo virus and current treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer and other animal illnesses would not be possible unless research was conducted on laboratory animals [4]. Because of this research, many familiar animals (and some wild) now have extended, healthier, happier lives. Such research has even yielded advanced treatments like joint replacement and pacemakers for animals [4].For a Following Round . . . Laboratory animals are also important in understanding potential bioterror threats posed by terrorists, and in researching possible vaccinations and treatments.[1] http://www.fda.gov...[2] http://www.fda.gov...[3] http://www.pro-test.org.uk...[4] http://fbresearch.org...

Title: Animal Testing Content: Thank you. The only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited—and painkillers are not even required. Even when alternatives to the use of animals are available, U.S. law does not require that they be used—and often they aren’t. Because the AWA specifically excludes rats, mice, birds, and cold-blooded animals, more than 95 percent of the animals used in laboratories are not even covered by the minimal protection provided by federal laws. Because they aren’t protected, experimenters don’t even have to provide them with pain relief. Between 2010 and 2014, nearly half a million animals—excluding mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals—were subjected to painful experiments and not provided with pain relief. A 2009 survey by researchers at Newcastle University found that mice and rats who underwent painful, invasive procedures, such as skull surgeries, burn experiments, and spinal surgeries, were provided with post-procedural pain relief only about 20 percent of the time.

Title: Animals should be used for Medical Research Content: Albert Sabin who developed the polio vaccine once stated "Without Animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year." Animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough throughout the past decade. I feel compelled to affirm today"s resolution that animals should be used for medical research because animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments, animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing, and that there is no adequate alternative to testing on a living whole body system. Contention 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. Imagine how many more possible medical breakthroughs that could be discovered with animal experimentation. An example of a life saving treatment discovered from animal testing is the Polio Vaccine. The Polio Vaccine tested on animals, reduced the global amount of those with polio from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. ( animal-testing.procon.org ) Chris Abee, director of the University of Texas Anderson Cancer Centers animal research facility states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees" and says that the use of animal research is are "our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the united states. ( animal-testing.procon.org ) A poll taken in 2011 by the science journal Nature showed that nearly 90% of biomedical scientists agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. Contention 2: Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvovirus. (animal-testing.procon.org ) Isnt it reasonable to test on animals if its gonna save more animals? Without Animal testing, many species would soon become extinct. Koalas, aravaged by chlamydia are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that may stall the animals disappearance. Without animal testing, we could soon lose many species such as the Koala. Even the American Veterinary Medical Association endorses animal testing. Contention 3: Animals are appropriate research subjects due to their similarity to humans. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. Every mammal including humans have the same set of organs such as the heart, kidneys, and lungs that function in the same way as humans. Because mammals and humans are so similar, they are open to many of the same conditions and illnesses as human such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. Animals do not have moral judgment or cognitive ability that humans do and because of this every culture recorded throughout human history has treated them differently than humans. If we grant animals rights, all humans would therefore have to become vegetarians, and hunting would be illegal. Conclusion: In today"s round I have shown why Animal Experimentation is essential for progress in Medical Technology due to the fact that Animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments, Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing, and that Animals are appropriate research subjects due to their similarity to humans. For these reasons, we can clearly conclude that progress ( value) should be upheld and we should affirm the resolution that animals should be used for medical research. Clearly we must affirm today"s resolution.

Title: Animals should be tested on Content: Pls vote!

Title: Animal Testing Content: Animal Testing: The use of non-human animals in experiments. Experiment: a scientific test in which you perform a series of actions and carefully observe their effects in order to learn about something. [1] Rebuttal: "By many accounts, animal testing often means that that animals are not treated humanely." - I'm sure they aren't treated "humanely", as they are not human. - However there are many cases of animal testing also do not harm the animal and in fact benefits the animal. - For example, currently the WWF organization are working hard to preserve Pandas, which are an endangered species. [2] To preserve the Pandas, they must learn more about Pandas. To do this, they must experiment on them. These experiments are generally harmless. For example, a scientist may measure and weigh several Pandas to determine which size and weight is healthy, so that they can spot out Pandas that are not healthy easier. Also, if a Panda is sick, veterinarians must experiment on the Panda to determine what is wrong with it and how to cure it, much like how a doctor would perform an x-ray scan on a broken bone to determine where the fracture is so he can accurately provide a diagnosis. "According to Santa Clara University, approximately 8 million animals are exposed to painful testing procedures," - That is unfortunate, but why should we humans care about the pains felt by animals? We already butcher and slaughter them for food. They already suffer whether or not we test them. And we do this because food benefits us, just like animal testing may benefit us. - Furthermore as I have shown, not all cases of animal testing result in the suffer of animals. Con's resolution is basically: "Animal testing is terrible and should be banned." My burden of proof is simply to show cases in which animal testing is not terrible and is actually necessary. I've met this burden by explaining how animal testing is necessary for the preservation of animals, which may also preserve the environment. "Many people believe it is unjust to sacrifice one species for the benefit of another, and that animal cruelty is never justified, regardless of the benefits that come from it." - Con has committed the Argumentum ad populum fallacy, otherwise known as the bandwagon fallacy. [3] Using an appeal to the masses does not validly support one's argument. "Some feel that it does not follow that a human --- Earth's most highly developed animal --- is considered more valuable than any other animal." - It doesn't matter how much we or animals are worth. If those people truly feel like this, they would all be vegans/vegetarians, which I'm sure is unlikely. We eat because we benefit from it, not because we devalue animals. The same goes for animal testing. - Animal testing has made huge medical breakthroughs in fighting breast cancer, Leukemia, HIV/AIDS, lung cancer, birth defects, diabetes, and the list goes on. [4] Those are the benefits we got from animal testing. Therefore, we don't do it because we devalue animals, but because it benefits us. "Even when animals are not killed or harmed during experimentation, they are often subjected to great deals of stress. Some animal advocates believe that the animal's experience of stress could actually influence an experiment, making the results unusable." - It is important for judges to note that this entire sentence was plagiarized word for word from this website: http://www.ehow.com... *In fact, the rest of Con's argument on "Expense" and "Necessity" has also been plagiarized from the same website. Because they are not Con's arguments, I refuse to address them. This is a clear conduct violation. "There are three general types of animal testing. Product testing is the testing of products such as soaps, cosmetics, household cleaners and pesticides on animals to ensure they are safe for human use. Research uses the testing of drugs and medical procedures on animals. Education and training uses animals to teach anatomy and to train medical studentsI have not seen any information for preserving animal testing plus Wikipedia literally anyone can put something on Wikipedia and it could be wrong" - Con did not provide a clear definition for animal testing in both round 1 and round 2. Therefore, I was allowed to provide a definition that Con must abide by. My definition of "Animal Testing" was: "The use of non-human animals in experiments." - My examples of preserving animals and the environment require non-human animals to be used in experiments. Therefore, it is still valid in the boundaries of this debate and considered animal testing. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://wwf.panda.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.amprogress.org...

Title: Animal testing Content: Save Animals: Don't Test on Them Animal testing is a huge controversy. Some argue that animal testing is a necessity to make medical breakthroughs. Opponents believe that animal testing is inhuman. Clearly, animal testing is a bad practice because it has caused suffering on a massive scale, it's a bad form of science, and is unethical. Throughout the world animal testing has caused suffering on a massive scale. In 2016, US Government statistics put the number of laboratory animals used in research at 820,812, a 7% increase from 2015 (PETA). Studies show that 4.1 million experiments are conducted on animals in laboratories in the UK each year ( National Antivisection Society). This is proof that laboratories have been on a rise lately, showing that the use of animal testing is a problem in other parts of the world, not only in the United States. Animal testing is a bad form of science. The food and drug administration reported that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal testing would fail on testing on humans (PETA). After seven years of testing on animals the anti-Rheumatic drug, Orpen, was declared safe for use on humans. After initiation of use on humans, this so-called "safe" drug was responsible for killing 76 people and caused a very serious illness to 3,500 others in Britain (NewStatesman). Some feel that animal testing is a unethical form of testing. More than 100 million animals are killed in the US each year. Laboratories are used for biology lessons, medical training, drugs, and cosmetic testing. Before animals die, most are forced to inhale toxic fumes or they are also immortalized and stuck to multiple devices for hours suffering. Scientist from PETA announced that companies/ testing laboratories could put stress and suffering on animals by have drilling holes into their skulls, have skin burned off, or their spinal cords crushed (PETA). Studies have also shown that because of the torment of the experiments animals are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them. Animals are taken out of their natural habitat and confined in barred cages and are socially isolated, which is not helping the animals in any way. On the other hand, many scientists and companies believe that animal testing is the best form of testing drugs for humans cures. Those against animal testing feel this isn"t right, they feel that scientists should start testing on humans for their own cures because animals and humans function differently. Why make animals suffer for them to possibly die after the scientist are done trying to see if the drug worked on the animal? The animals are under unnatural testing environments and the scientists are doing this in a very unhealthy and unnatural way. There is really no thought out processes behind testing on animals. How do animals benefit from dying? Animals don't have any say in getting tested on in a laboratory. If companies and scientist started testing on humans it could lead to more cures found in viruses and diseases, because the testing would be done on the very being that the drug would be used on to cure the ailment. Testing on animals doesn't benefit from much. Yes, scientist do find cures for viruses and disease, but scientist are killing creatures that can't fight for what they want. Animals have no say in what is happening to them. They get put into a situation that they can't protect themselves from. Animal testing shouldn't exist because of the pain and suffering they make them go through just to find a cure that they could test on a human instead of risking animals lives in the process.

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

Title: Animal testing Content: lol

Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: "lesser than humans"- First off, humans are just a more complicated species of animal. You can read this if you don't believe me: https://io9.gizmodo.com... http://www.zo.utexas.edu... https://www.smh.com.au... Basically, other species are more intelligent and emotional than we tend to believe, and we run on more instinct than we tend to believe. Second, the animal species we use in these experiments are semi-intelligent mammals. Remember, they also feel pain and, despite not understanding what is going on, will understand pain. Look at this: https://www.psychologytoday.com... https://www.npr.org... I did not use PETA as a resource, as they exaggerate the facts on most subjects like this.

Title: Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature Content: As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals.[1] [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.

Title: Animal Testing should be allowed Content: 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. :)

Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: 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.

Title: Animal Testing Content: 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.

Title: animal testing. Content: 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...

Title: is animal testing ethical Content: Should scientist be able to test on animals before they test on humans?

Title: animals should stop being used as testing subjects Content: 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

Title: animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses Content: 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.

Title: Animal Testing should continue for medical research Content: 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...

Title: Animal testing should be kept (medical reasons) Content: 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.

Title: Animal testing Content: Animals are usually only used for testing for specific studies.

Title: Animal testing Content: Animal testing is not alway about drugs there are also unnecessary animal testing when they test cosmetics on the animal. For example according to Peta there are experiment around the world where they test makeup such as mascara on bunnies, Mascara has many chemicals in it that irritates the eyes of the bunnies in the experiment causing the eye to redden and even make the bunnies completely blind. Also when it comes to drug testing 92% later fail human trials. in other words 9 out of 10 drugs do NOT pass the FDA. Furthermore animals have many differences to us for example the animals that are mostly used in experiment are rats mice birds dogs and cats. Did you know that the pill Tylenol actually can kill cats while it helps humans every day and is used daily. Many scientist say that we will go back to the "dark days" if we do not use animals. However this is not entirely true there is new technology we can use instead of animals. For example we have the technology to actually create human tissue animals don"t have to be used consistently in experiments at all but scientist don"t always seem to realize that and just continue to use animals in experiments that can be painful.

Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: Computers have been known to fail, and animals are only ineffective from the use of non-mammalian species.

Title: Animal testing should be banned Content: 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...

Title: Animal experimetation should be banned around the world Content: In fact, about one century ago scientists used humans for create something new, I mean Holocoust. Actually, Nazic people used on this experiments Jew people but it is another topic. Well, lets consider our issue which became as a global problem. In my humble opinion, animals suffer from experiments extremely and it is so cruel toward animals. Moreover, activists emphasize that with a modern technologies animal testing is unnecessary because new era in a medicine may get the same results. In fact, doctors state that it is not just to give a mouse a tablet and see what is going to happen. Even scientists break their legs of animals and poison them while they are alive and so on. Thus, it is understandable that animals are victims of cruel life. For instance, paracetamol is helpful medicine for people but it may kill a several types of animals.

Title: animals should stop being used as testing subjects Content: Again, I claim victory over two forfeits.

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

Title: Animal testing should be banned. Content: Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested.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. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 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. The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee.Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them. In the Bible, Proverbs 12:10 states: "A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast..." The Hindu doctrine of ahimsa teaches the principle of not doing harm to other living beings. The Buddhist doctrine of right livelihood dissuades Buddhists from doing any harm to animals.

Title: Animal Testing is Inhumane and should be illegal Content: Firstly, I'd like to ask my opponent a question for clarification of this debate's rules and parameters.To my opponent: Being that it is that the rules dictate a correct use of conventional grammar and spelling, is it out of bounds for me to point out grammatical and spelling errors made? I'm typically not very strict as long as the point is made, but the rules seem to obligate that I point them out. Is it optional? Is it mandatory? Is it advised against? I'd like to be clear on how we're dealing with that. That's all. /opponentSociety's Sympathizations to Species Sans-HumanIt's pretty obvious that animals deserve our attention if anyone deserves our attention. Animals often surpass humans in many areas of intelligence, strength, and speed, and have more practical use in our society than what they're used as today (tortured, eaten, and all that other stuff that my opponent will most surely mention).Of course, the body of scientific knowledge that led up to this is exactly that: Scientific knowledge. Knowledge deduced, induced, and abduced through scientific rigor. We know what we know of animals through research, experimentation, and testing.Testing is vital to our understanding of the natural world. We test several phenomena under specific circumstances to understand them. That's simply what it is. We test on humans all the time, and are doing so right now, why should animals be any different or "special?" We could treat animals differently from us in terms of ethics and such, but that doesn't ensure that that treatment would be humane. So, just as we test humans with science, we should treat animals with the same rigor.The only problem I can see is the lack of consent. They're born, and they're tested. However, if the standard of living is sufficient for those tested, I don't see the problem. Consent is not necessary for humans when they are born into a government in which the standard of living is sufficient. Born into a nation with sufficient resources to feed and nurture everyone, is one not a citizen until they have the age to give consent for such things? In the same sense, do we have to condition an animal to learn between two choices so that they understand to give consent every time? We have the ability to do that, but it would be inefficient and unnecessary.That is my argument for why animal testing is vital and should not be illegal.With my arguments made, I'd like to rebut my opponent with the remainder of this round.Obligatorily Opposing My Opponent's ObligingsMy opponent's first point is that animals feel pain. My opponent states that when we test animals, the procedure involves sticking chemicals down their eyes, as an example of testing being inhumane.There is absolutely no evidence that this is part of any standard procedure in typical animal testing. My opponent cites no sources, despite dictating in the rules of this argument that that is a necessity. So far, my opponent has broken the majority of the rules set by their own self.The claim that this is something that's done to ensure that their capacity in pain is sufficient for testing is a rather big claim, so I don't understand why my opponent would breeze right past it without properly giving a source.The next point my opponent makes is that people in jail make stronger candidates for testing.In case my opponent actually means jail instead of prison, I'm going to make an argument against that. What!? Being in jail does not strip you of all citizen and consensual rights! That's not how jail works!In the case that my opponent did misspell/miscommunicate what was meant to be communicated, it's worth noting that experiments were done on prisoners for a very long time. The protection of prisoners was heightened recently due to abuse of scientific conduct. I don't see it as being a dilemma, an ultimatum between animals and prisoners. They're all worth testing. Disqualifying a batch is unfortunate, but we've still got batches aplenty.To my opponent: Of utmost urgency, I'd like you to address the following points first: Clarification of the rules; How animal testing is inherently inhumane. The rest can be replied and rebutted to in your own time and pace. Thank you. /opponent

Title: Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no) Content: Animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade, for instance: 1.We share 95% of our genes with a mouse, making them an effective model for the human body 2.Animals suffer from similar diseases to humans including cancers, TB, flu and asthma 3.While non-animal methods play an important part of biomedical research, they cannot replace all use of animals 4.Thanks to research on animals leading to the development of Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapies (HAART), AIDS is no longer the death sentence it was 30 years ago 5.While Fleming discovered penicillin without using animals, he shared the Nobel Prize with Florey and Chain who, by testing it on mice, discovered how penicillin could be used to fight infections inside the body 6.Smallpox has been eradicated from Earth thanks to research in animals 7.Thanks to animal research, primarily in mice, cancer survival rates have continued to rise 8.Modern anesthetics, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin and insulin all relied on animal research in their development 9.Modern surgical techniques including hip replacement surgery, kidney transplants, heart transplants and blood transfusions were all perfected in animals 10.Scanning techniques including CT and MRI were developed using non-human animals As you can see we actually increased our medical capabilities by a lot just with testing on animals. Also may i add that there are many, many, many mice- over one billion, so i don't think that science is causing an extinction over any animal they tests. Can i ask you a personal question Sashil. Are you catholic or christian? Do you believe in "God" or a "God"? i will explain in my next response why i have asked this. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk... http://wiki.answers.com...

Title: Monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law Content: Amina Amjed The case of Animal Rights Round 4 1.The use of animals for science, for commercial purposes, for agriculture purposes and for the purposes of sport hunting and trapping should be abolished. 2.It is our duty to consider animals just as we consider those who are unable to protect and defend themselves such as the elderly, the disabled and children. 3.The unjust and immoral abuse of animals for science, sports, agriculture and for any other human entertainment or attainment of needs for said humans is fundamentally wrong. 4.We should not regard animals as resources. 5.Once we start viewing them as only sources, which is where we commit the fundamental wrong. 6.It is our direct duty to ensure safety of animals from brutality as we do to our children and to those humans around us who are incapable of helping themselves. 7.It is without a doubt that the process of change regarding animals and the rights of animals is complicated and required extensive amount of time and finance to bring about this change but even so it is much needed. 8.Using/abusing animals for scientific experiments and/or for sports" such as seal clubbing is brutal and against morality. 9.We should not overlook animal rights because they do not have the characteristics and inherent components of a human being. 10.Some would justify the use of animals by applying the theory of contractarianism. 11.Contractarianism is the belief, by some, that morality consists of a set a set of rules that individuals abide to voluntarily just as we do when we agree to a contract. 12.In this case, animals cannot volunteer or provide consent to be or not be part of a contract therefore they cannot be moral and not considered persons. 13.The same is true for children. Children are unable to consent to a contract without the proper consent and supervision of their parent(s) and/or guardian. Similarly, animals should be protected by their guardian(s), if one is present, with the same moral perspective as another human. 14. By applying inherent value, it is evident that each individual is as valuable as the next and not just what that individual can do for another but the value of the individual on its own; animal or human. 15.We should not use/abuse animals just because by doing so it provides for the good of others. By hurting or undermining one individual, human or animal, we condone acts of cruelty which are not morally justified acts. 16.The rights view of moral theory rationally explains the domain of human morality. 17.Furthermore, it is undisputable that animals lack many attributes as a human such as reading, writing, building book cases or baking a cake. 18.The fight for animal rights is analogous to that of equality for women and other minorities, 19.In regards to animals that are used in the field of science, there is proof of devaluing these animals by testing on them routinely as if their value is reducible by their usefulness to others. This view is a utilitarian view but not a morally just view pertaining to inherent values. 20.The aforementioned animals are treated without any respect and by doing so the rights of these animals are violated. 21.Killing a human being does not justify our moral values then why should that be true of killing or torturing animals. 22.A right, properly understood, is claim that one party may exercise against another. 23.But rights cannot simply depend on the presence of moral capacity. 24.If that were true then we would have to assent that humans who are mentally impaired or comatose lack the ability to respond to or exercise moral claims therefore they have no rights. 25.Rights can simply pertain to those that have a subject of life, like normal mammals and non-human mammals because they have inherent value. 26.We have to end the systematic oppression on these animals as our moral duty. 27.Non- human mammals have the same fundamental rights to not be harmed or killed as we do. 28.As you mentioned, that one always weighs the pros and cons of whatever decision they make in order to determine the morality of said decision, is not always accurate. 29.Some human individuals lack the ability to determine what is right and wrong which further enforces the point that they are not moral beings. 30.If it was necessary to only have morality as a component of being a person than some humans would cease to one. 31. The abusive act of a mother, towards their child then are not immoral, as far as the individual committing the act but is considered immoral to those who are in fact able to make moral and immoral distinctions. 32.Because we cannot properly infer and communicate with animals, as humans we cannot assume as you said that they lack the ability to actually communicate. 33.It is almost like one individual who speaks only one language, going to a different country with a completely different language. At this point this individual has to acquire the ability to learn or either try and find someone to be able to communicate with the people of this country. 34.I do not believe that by giving rights to animals we would inherently be degrading the meaning of "rights". 35.If anything we would be expanding upon those rights to make them more just towards every member of our community and the world which includes animals as well humans. 36.It is true that by regarding a domestic animal as part of the family we do not stop considering them as an animal and I do not argue that point. 37.If to a thief the act of robbery is moral than how can we not say the same in regards to animals? 38.If a thief can commit a crime and believe that he is doing so with moral justification than we cannot think that an animal does what it does without moral causation. 39.Once again, I state that rights cannot simply depend on the presence of moral capacity. 40.The abuse of animals, in any arena of life if wrong and should be abolished. 41.Monkeys, therefore, should be considered persons in the eyes of the law.

Title: Animal testing should be banned. Content: 1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals. 2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree "5%-25% of the time." 3) Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85% 4) 92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they"re useless, dangerous or both. 5) The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals. 6) A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods. 7) Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans " less use than guessing. The experimenters said: "we would have been better off to have tossed a coin." 8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue: the two are completely different. 9) The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs. 10)Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans. 11) 75% of side effects identified in animals never occur. 12) Over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals. 13) Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans. 14) Genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment. 15) GM animal the CF- mouse never gets fluid infections in the lungs " the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients. 16) In America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs. 17) Each year 2.1 million Americans are hospitalised by medical treatment. 18) In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests. 19) In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer. 20) A German doctors" congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested. 21) According to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests. 22) 61% of birth defects were found to have the same cause. 23) 70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys. 24) 78% of foetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test. 25) Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals " including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans. 26) One of the most common lifesaving operation (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection. 27) The great Dr Hadwen noted "had animal experiments been relied upon"humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia." 28) Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer drugs, insulin (which causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if vivisection were believed. 29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies. 30) The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests. 31) 30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans. 32) Despite many Nobel prizes going to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial. 33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was "I am sure it could be."

Title: Animal testing. Content: Since my opponent has not adequately defined the resolution, I will elaborate: my opponent must prove that it is morally permissible to perform potentially harmful scientific experiments on non-human animals of the class mammalia (since when we refer to animal testing, what we really mean is mammal testing). I must prove that it is not morally permissible. ======== Contention 1: Animals are conscious. Conscious beings have the right to life; animals are conscious, and so animals should not be experimented upon. Contention 2: Animals are capable of suffering. All mammals can feel pain, have emotions, and can suffer. It is inhumane to conduct dangerous and potentially harmful experiments on beings that are capable of suffering. ======== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://encyclopedia.farlex.com...

Title: The Use of Animals within Scientific Research Content: Chimpanzees will not only be used to observe, that's what humans are for. But to test and to understand things that are more genetic are more noticeable in them rather than us because we have both genes and experiences meshed to create who we are today. I don't advocate for the harming of animals, I think its wrong, but without their help we wouldn't be anymore safer towards potentially harm chemicals.

Title: Animal experimetation should be banned around the world Content: 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.

Title: Animal experimetation should be banned around the world Content: Holocaust isn't an experimentation on humans, the Nazi's committed genocide by killing lots of Jews. Now let's get back to the main reason why we are debating. Thanks to animal testing many lives had been saved because of the medicines that the scientist had created; if it wasn't for animal testing, there wouldn't still be a cure for some diseases that are fatal and deadly. If it wasn't for animal experimentation you wouldn't be thanking the doctors for saving your loved ones life because of illness. Animal testing is an integral part of medical research, without which advancements and breakthroughs regarding treatment of critical diseases cannot be made. Moreover, testing on animals has helped develop vaccines for many life-threatening diseases like Herpes Simplex, Hepatitis B, Polio, rabies, malaria, mumps and virus related to organ transplantation rejection. In addition to this, animal testing has also helped in the refinement of procedures, related to measuring the blood pressure, pacemaker technology and the perfection of the heart and lung disease treatments. You will be surprised to read that the anesthesia, which is used to numb the body during surgery today, was successfully tested on animals first. It was essential to test it on animals, so as to find out the effects on the body. How else could researchers find out more about anesthesia? 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.

Title: Animals should be tested on Content: Introduction The status quo is that animals are widely and generally used to be experimented on with certain chemicals and products to find out if those certain chemical and products are safe and effective to humans. Thus, it is the burden of the Con to prove why this status quo should change. He must provide strong arguments supported by evidence and alternatives as to why his proposal should be accepted. On other hand, I will be defend the status quo by also providing good arguments backed by pieces of evidence. The proposal of Con is ambiguous as he fails to set the parameters of this debate as to what extent the ban on animal testing should be, whether it is absolute or not. Because of that, I would assume that it is an absolute ban that he wants. Rebuttals: a. Animals should not be tested on because animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Response: It is given that animals do experience cruelty and pain to some extent. However, the question is not whether they experience pain, but whether that pain is justified. I would say that it is justified because the benefits outweigh the cost. Take note that scientists inflict pain on animals not for fun but for research. Consequently, this research would greatly enhance both human and animal lives and welfare. (I would elaborate this later) b. 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. Response: Con, thank you for giving this statistics that would support my case. c. Other alternatives to animal testing exists. Response: Living systems like human beings and animals are extremely complex. Studying cell cultures in a petri dish, while sometimes useful, does not provide the opportunity to study interrelated processes occurring in the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system. Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs. Also, conditions such as blindness and high blood pressure cannot be studied in tissue cultures. Computer models can only be reliable if accurate information gleaned from animal research is used to build the models in the first place. [16] Furthermore, even the most powerful supercomputers are unable to accurately simulate the workings of complex organs such as the brain.1 In short, those alternatives you stated are not as effective as animal testing. With your alternatives, it would only endanger the lives of humans for producing inaccurate results. Arguments: a. 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. [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. 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 Moreover, because animal research, many diseases that once killed millions of people every year are either treatable or have been eradicated altogether. Immunizations against polio, diphtheria, mumps, rubella and hepatitis save countless lives, and the survival rates from many major diseases are at an all-time high, thanks to the discovery of new drugs, medical devices and surgical procedures. According to the American Cancer Society, the fight against cancer has seen 24 significant biomedical advances in the past 30 years.3 Similarly, Animal research for animal health also has resulted in many life-saving and life-extending treatments for cats, dogs, farm animals, wildlife and endangered species. Pacemakers, artificial joints, organ transplants, freedom from arthritic pain, and vaccines for rabies, distemper, parvo virus, infectious hepatitis, anthrax, tetanus and feline leukemia contribute to longer, happier and healthier lives for animals. New treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer and hip dysplasia can save, extend or enhance the life of a beloved pet, and new reproductive techniques are helping to protect threatened species.4 b. Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia. [] Animal testing has also been instrumental in saving endangered species from extinction, including the black-footed ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil. [Koalas, ravaged by an epidemic of sexually transmitted chlamydia and now classified as endangered in some regions of Australia, are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that may stall the animal's disappearance. [The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. 5 c. Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. [All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. 6 Sources: 1 2Animal testing. URL: http://animal-testing.procon.org... 3 4 Trull, F. Animal-test research has saved many human lives. URL: http://www.mofed.org... 5 6 Animal testing. URL: http://animal-testing.procon.org...

Title: Animal testing does more harm than good Content: Yes, in some scenario's, animals will react differently to substances than humans, however; scientists study the traits that these animals hold, and they are usually able to counter these obsticles. Even if they cant, what other things can they test on? The idea of testing on models is utterly rediciculous. Models cant biologicially react to medicines or test vaccines that might be used. Even if they could, an actual organism would be much more accurate. My opponent says that living animals may mislead human research, however; models will mislead research even more. Humans and animals both have one thing in common; their alive. In some ways, humans and lab rats have similar biological traits, and because both are mammals, it is easier to test on them. We have so much of an abundance of these lab creatures, that we can use so many in our experiments, and in many cases they are successful! My opponent also says that animal experimentation My opponent says that it is cruel and imhumane to experiment on animals, however; the one thing that is cruel and inhumane is letting people die. It is inhumane not to try to stop cancer, ALS or to help amputee's, when we have the ability to do so. One of the most succesfull ways to do this is by scientifically testing our medicines on other creatures, so we dont end up accidentally giving wrong substances to humans. We need to know whether or not a medicine works or not, and if we arnt sure, scientists could un-intentienallty spread a medicine that doesnt even work or has negative side affects. My opponent also says that animal testing creates dangerous interpretations of the value life, and that it imply's that life has no meaning. If my opponent believes this is true, why is the intentions of animal experimentation to help the survival of human life? Yes, to most rational people, human lives are valued more than that of animals. Obviously animals do not have rights. That is simply stated. Thousands of years ago, humans conquered earth as the dominant species. Because animals can't think as rationally as humans, it is irrational to say that these creatures should have the same political and social abilities as humans. Yes, their is such a thing as animal abuse, however; animal experimentations do not hold that title. The reason why experimentations have been legalized is because it is a necessary factor for human health and advances in technology. p.s sorry for the forfiet, things got stuck k

Title: Animal Testing Content: Thank you~~~

Title: Animal Research Content: Animal research is not wrong! The animals used for experiments are not treated bad! they are taken care of by multiple employees need by the IACUC including a vet, a scientists, and a animal tech. Other employees the institution wishes to hire also help to make sure the facility abides by the rules set by the IACUC committee. Also, cures and treatments such as cancer diabetes and HIV can now be developed to help save millions of lives. Also, not all testing hurt the animal. there are multiple behavior testing that don't involve hurting the animal at all. in fact, most behavior animals get a treat after the experiment. Multiple tests such as lymphoma and diabetes were tested through animals first before testing humans to ensure it is safe. All are successful cases. Behavioral studies in animals help scientists understand how human interact and help understand some evolutionary advantages. Genetic studies done on animals helped complete the genome sequence and show how animals are related to humans proving evolution of a common ancestor. Allowing scientists to do research on animals will allow them to find more cures to help save humanity. Who doesn't want that?

Title: Animal testing should be kept (medical reasons) Content: 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.

Title: This house believes that animal testing should continue. Content: I would agree that animal research has given humans great cure as described by proponent. I would agree that animal testing had a positive impact in saving human lives . However, it would be wise to note that given the great advances in science and technology today, it would be impossible to believe that there are no alternatives to animal testing. Point: Research can be done effectively without experimenting on any living creature As of now, there are methods such as growing and testing human tissue cultures rather than on animals. Hence, there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. There have been many examples of success in research which does not require animal testing. Here are some examples: The National Research Council advocates testing on human cells rather than animals and the council also encourages companies to make the switch. One great achievement was the 3-dimensional model of breast cancer so scientist are able to study cancer in its earliest stage which allows scientists to test for possible treatment. Instead of using animals like rats to study cancer, the 3D model uses actual human tissue. Actual human tissue would well be a much more effective medium for experimentation compared to other animals which could provide a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. This could bring research to a whole new level. (References: https://academic.oup.com...) Addressing the proponent's point of sacrificing a rat would be better than a human, it would seem to me that a human have more rights than a rat. However, I feel that animals have as much right to life as human beings. Animals do behave in ways that can convey meaning just like a typical human. For instance, animals recoil from pain or appear to express fear from being tormented. If animals can feel what a human can feel, shouldn't they not be discriminated just because they belong to a different species? Like humans, animals are sentient beings. So, animal testing should not continue as animals have their rights too. Addressing the proponents second point about people are free willed. Of course, it is against human rights to test on humans. However, given the advances in technology as mentioned in the point made in the beginning, I believe there are better ways to do testing rather than on animals. To sum this up, I feel that animal testing should not continue given the fact that science and technology have been so advanced which provides us with much more testing alternatives as compared to in the past, where science and technology are more backward. Animals have as much right to life as human beings and given the fact that there are other alternatives, people could make a much better choice that would allow us to reap a greater benefits.

Title: Animal Testing Content: ~lol~

Title: Animal testing should be ban in the us Content: ?

Title: Animal Testing Content: Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. 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. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 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. a. The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee.b. 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA. c. Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" 2. Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. a. Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that "it's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the human." Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats." [ b. Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts. An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while thein vitro alternative costs $11,000. A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300. A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200. A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research.

Title: we need animal testing for the safety of humans Content: Animal testing is the most humane way for scientist to make scientific discoveries, testing on humans could kill us for the benifet of others. Like an eye for an eye. Well remeber an eye for an eye makes the world go blind.

Title: Animal experimentation in the context of medical science Content: My opponent is mistaken on 5 points: 1) "Animal testing brings us down to the level of the animal, and there is a less morbid alternative. " My opponent's argument at this point bears small relevance to the real world. Animal testing does not bring one down to the level of the animal, as animals do not conduct experiments of the sort we are discussing. On the other hand, if you are proposing that testing on animals brings us down to a lower intellectual or ethical level, then one of my opponent's main points is flawed. By arguing thus, my opponent is effectively saying that animals are, in fact, 'beneath' us. Researchers only use animals because they are seen to be worth less than human lives. 2) "Studies show that animal testing results are mostly useless to humans, meaning that my opponent's Cancer patient could die from the medicine. " It is important for my opponent to realise that animal testing is not supposed to be 100% accurate. Nor is it supposed to be used as the sole means of testing new treatments. Tests are conducted on animals because they are the closest models to humans. Animals are used in the initial screening of a drug in an effort to spot likely side-effects. in my original argument, I pointed out that all mammals share significant similarities. Activists often point out that 80% of drugs tested in animals never make it to human trials. They see this as a failure, when, in fact, it shows that 80% of potentially lethal new medications are not administered to human patients. Once initial safety screening is done, human trials begin. Regarding my cancer patient- my opponent rightly asserts that he could die from the medication. However, the point of animal testing is to weed out the medicines which are likely to cause him harm. As I have said, no screening procedure is perfect, but animal testing is the most accurate model we currently have, without using humans. 3) "the death toll from human testing is relatively low" Human testing is never carried out without prior animal tests. At least, this is true for drugs. Surgeries may be trialled in humans without first being tested in animals, but these tend to be the procedures which do not involve radical changes to the currently used procedure/s. I would suggest that one of the reasons human tests result in a low death toll is because of initial animal tests. 4) The second link provided by my opponent bears small relevance to this debate, as it mainly talks about human error in conducting clinical trials. It does not provide any arguments for a feasible alternative to animal testing. 5) "Thus, animal testing is immoral, and there is a clear alternative" I would suggest that my opponent's argument does not support his assertion that animal testing is immoral to a sufficient degree, as no clear argument has been made supporting this claim. Furthermore, my opponent is mistaken if he believes that there are alternatives to animal testing that would not involve wide-spread harm to human patients.

Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: 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?

Title: we need animal testing for the safety of humans Content: I do agree that it is the most humane way to do that, but a animals are so much different then humans. Testing on humans could kill us, but Scientist cannot make someone do testing for science unless they agree. As long as the person agrees to it, it is perfectly fine to set their life at risk, that is their own choice.

Title: Animal Experimentation for the benefit of humans. Content: It is an ASSUMED fact that all of these things helped us discover all of these things but, in reality, it is chance that all of these things have worked. Experimenting on animals is NOT anything close to experimenting on a human. The physiological makeup is astronomically different. "Each year in the United States, an estimated 70 million animals are maimed, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, and otherwise hurt and killed in the name of science, by private institutions, household product and cosmetics companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and scientific centers. Substances we use everyday, such as eye shadow, soap, furniture polish and oven cleaner, may be tested on rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, cats, and other animals. These tests are mainly used to test the degree of harmfulness of products and their ingredients. No antidoes are ever sought, so animal tests cannot be used to prevent or treat potential human injuries. These tests are not required by the law, and they are only done to protect companies from consumer lawsuits." Look at all of these unnecessary things that are being tested on innocent animals. Cosmetics, furniture and appliance cleaners, things that we wash our bodies with .. It is unethical to use an animal just so that, on the bottle, it can say tested on animals or whatever have you. ** THESE TESTS ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE LAW, AND THEY ARE ONLY DONE TO PROTECT COMPANIES FROM CONSUMER LAWSUITS. It is safe to say, that there is no respect for animals on a personal level. The people that do this do not understand that an animal, has the right to protect themselves just like we do. If we have the opportunity to consent or not consent to things like this, then the animals should be able to also. They live, breath and walk this earth JUST LIKE US, they deserve to be treated just like us. We fight so hard for animals to have rights when they are being abused in their own homes, starved to death, beaten and left to die on the side of the street. But then we have "an estimated 70 million animals that are maimed, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated and otherwise hurt and killed in the name of science" and nobody wants to do anything about that? This is a form of abuse because there is NO CONSENT from the animal. Until there is a more safe and efficient way to experiment on animals, it should be banned universally. It is unethical to treat an animal this way, considering you would not want to be used as an experiment either.

Title: animals should stop being used as testing subjects Content: I claim victory as a result of Pro's forfeit.

Title: Monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law Content: Amina Amjed The Case for Animal Rights Round 1 1.The use of animal for science, for commercial purposes, for agriculture purposes and for the purposes of sport hunting and trapping should be abolished. 2.We should regard animals just as we regard those who are unable to defend and protect themselves such as children, the disabled and the elderly. 3.The abuse of animals for science, for sports, for agriculture and for any other human entertainment or attainment of needs for humans is fundamentally wrong. 4.We, as humans, must stop treating animals as things and treating them as beings that are capable of feeling pain and suffering. 5.It is true, that the process of change regarding animals and the rights of animals is complicated and requires extensive amount of time and finance to bring about this change but even so it is much needed. 6.The idea of animal rights has reason if not just emotion. 7.We have a direct duty to ensure safety of animals from brutality, as we do to our children and to those humans around us who are incapable of helping themselves. 8.We should not overlook animals because they do not have the characteristics and components of a human being. 9.Using animals for scientific experiments and/or for sports" purposes is brutal and against morality. 10.Pain is pain wherever it occurs. 11.Some would try to justify the use, therefore abuse, of animals by referring to what is known as contractarianism. 12.Contractariansim is the belief, by some, that morality consists of a set of rules that individuals abide to voluntarily just as we do when we agree to a contract. 13.Animals cannot volunteer or provide consent to be or not be a part of a contract therefore they cannot be moral and not considered persons. 14.However, this is true for children as well. Children cannot consent to a contract without the permission and supervision of their parent and/or guardian. Just so, animals should be protected by their guardian(s), if one is present, with the same moral perspective as another human. 15.Theories such as the cruelty-kindness view and utilitarianism have been presented to justify the protection of animals but have not proved to be entirely effective. 16.Each view is flawed is some way to segregate animal and the rights that should be given to them. 17.By taking the inherent value approach, it is evidently clear that each individual is as valuable as the next and not just what that individual can do for others. Your value as an individual would not be regarded by what you can do for me and in return what I can do for you. 18.In that same respect, an animal is considered an individual who should be treated with the same rights as me and you regardless of what they can do for us. 19.We should not use and/or abuse animals just because by doing so, it provides for the good of others. By hurting or undermining one individual we inherently subject ourselves to condone acts of cruelty. 20.The rights view of moral theory rationally explains the domain of human morality. 21.It is true, that animals lack many attributes of a human such as reading, writing, building book cases or baking a cake. 22.However, it is also true that there are some humans who are incapable of doing some of the things that I mentioned above but we do not devalue them as an individual or say that they are not human. 23.As an individual, be it a human or a monkey, we feel things, want things, have certain expectations, we feel pain and excitement, we feel frustration and we also suffer from untimely death. 24.All who have inherent value have it equally regardless of them being human animals or not. 25.The fight for animal rights is analogous to that of equality for women and other minorities. 26.In regards to animals that are used in the field of science, there is proof of devaluing these animals by testing on them routinely as if their value is reducible by their usefulness to others. These animals are treated without any respect and in doing so the rights of animals are violated. 27.In the same sense, farm animals are kept in stressful close confinements or in isolation which causes them pain and suffering. This treatment, rather mistreatment of farm animals is rooted in the view which lacks the acknowledgement of animals as individuals with independent value. Instead they are viewed as resource for "humans". 28.Killing one human for selfish means does not satisfy our moral values than why should that be true of killing or torturing animals. 29.A right, properly comprehended, is a claim that one party may exercise against another. The victim of this claim can potentially be a person, a community, or even all human kind. 30.It should than be understood that rights in general are in every case claims or potential claims within a community or moral agents. 31.Rights can be defended or claimed by those beings that can make moral claims against one another. 32.Human can make these moral choices whereas animals cannot. Animals are not beings that are capable of practicing or responding to moral claims. 33.But rights cannot simply depend on the presence of moral capacity. If that were true then we would have to agree that humans who are brain damaged or comatose lack the ability to respond to or exercise moral claims therefore they have no rights. 34.Non-human mammals have the same fundamental rights as a normal mammal to not be harmed or killed. 35.Those that have a subject of life, like normal mammals and non-human mammals, have inherent value. 36.Animals have the ability to feel pain, satisfaction, need, pleasure, disease and death, just as any human being does. 37.Therefore, I argue, that animals, such as monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law. 38.Rights of animals should be respected. 39.The use of animals in science; commercial animal agriculture; commercial and sport hunting and trapping should be indefinitely terminated.

Title: Animal tests too infrequently lead to scientific advancements Content: While it is undeniable that scientific advancements have been made on account of animal experimentation, these advancements have been too rare to justify animal testing. The basic problem is that there is never any guarantee that any instance of animal testing will lead to any advancement in science. There is always a significant risk that an entire line of study that involves killing thousands of animals will lead to no substantive scientific benefits. This makes it highly inconsistent that the ethical trade-off is "worth it", if it ever is. This inconsistency means that a large portion of tested animals will not meet the ethical criteria of being "worth it", and could thus be called ethically wrong.

Title: Animal Testing Content: Passing like I'm supposed to.

Title: Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no) Content: first is acceptance

Title: animal testing should be banned Content: 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

Title: Wierdman's Tourney- Animal Testing Content: 1. Animal testing is immoral and causes much suffering on the animal’s part. Animals, when subjected to testing, are dissected, gassed, burned, blinded, forced in cages, and executed. Approximately 100 million animals, including dogs, cats, rabbits, mice, birds, rats, chimpanzees, monkeys, and a plethora of other living organisms are killed every year [2]. These inexcusable acts are said to be for the “greater good”, but what is the “greater good”? We use animal testing for products such as toothpaste. Is my toothpaste part of the “greater good”? Perhaps my dish soap is part of it. Either way, I am sickened to know that 200,000 animals or so have been killed so I can brush my teeth in safety [3]. It is even more sickening to realize that many of these deaths were unneeded, since it would have been possible for companies such as REACH to use other available alternatives to animal testing. (These alternatives will be expanded upon in future arguments. ) However, scientists crossed the line with animal testing when they began testing weapons on animals [4]. It is estimated that in 2007 over 18,000 animals were used in weapons research. Animals subjected to this form of testing are poisoned by chemical warfare agents, subjected to blast injuries, and deliberately wounded and killed by bacterial toxins. This is undeniably inhumane and cruel, and it should be stopped immediately. 2. Animal testing is not reliable. While certain animals may have similar attributes to the human body, they still react differently to vaccines, drugs, medications, and experiments. Thus, the results of animal testing can be unpredictable and have, in some cases, endangered human lives. A) Clioquinol, a drug produced to provide safe relief from diarrhea, had a severe negative impact upon many humans. Despite being “safety tested” in animals, this drug caused approximately 30,000 cases of blindness and/or paralysis in Japan alone and thousands of deaths worldwide. B) Opren was a drug for arthritis; however, it was withdrawn in 1982 after 62 deaths and 3,500 serious side affects including damage to the eyes, skin, liver, and kidneys. This too was supposedly, “safety tested” in animals. C) Thalidomide is one of the most famous examples of the dangers of animal testing. Its original purpose was to be a sedative for pregnant women. Despite the manufacturer’s claims that it was completely safe for the unborn child, this sedative caused tens of thousands of deaths worldwide. Moreover, it caused permanent nerve damage in adults not detected during animal testing. Additional cases of the dangers of animal testing include Vioxx, Isoprenaline, and Rezulin. Furthermore, FDA itself estimated in 2006 that 92% of drugs that pass animal testing fail in human clinical trials [2]. It is evident that animal testing is unreliable and causes millions of deaths, both in animals and humans. 3. There are alternatives to animal testing [5]. (Nearly everything in this argument can be found within the given link, [5]. ) Although animal testing is crude and ineffective, there are many other ways to get the same, if not better, results without killing so many animals. Not to mention these alternatives are cheaper. The following is a quote from the article: “Comparative studies of human populations allow doctors and scientists to discover the root causes of human diseases and disorders so that preventive action can be taken. Epidemiological studies led to the discoveries of the relationship between smoking and cancer and to the identification of heart disease risk factors. (2) Conversely, tobacco company executives relied on misleading animal-based studies to deny the link between smoking and cancer as recently as 1994. (3)” From this paragraph, we can already tell that epidemiological studies have benefited us by showing the relations between smoking and cancer. Animal testing, on the other hand, did no such thing, and actually denied that there was a link between smoking and cancer. Furthermore, the tobacco company executives would have to kill many animals to reach this false conclusion, whereas the epidemiological studies did not have to kill any animals, and it reached the correct conclusion. Moreover, population studies have revealed ways to prevent AIDS and other infectious diseases, whereas animal studies have barely made a dent in this ongoing problem. In fact, approximately 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines that were passed in animal testing were denied in human clinical trials, according to NIH. Then we have one of the best alternatives to animal testing. Human volunteers can donate their bodies and/or organs to medical research or other forms of testing. Alternatively, human volunteers can donate tissue or even cells to be subjected to testing. While the former may be rare, the latter is likely to happen very frequently, since it requires little to no loss on the donator’s part. In fact, it is already happening, and it is through these studies that we have been able to develop a 3-D model of breast cancer so investigators can test potential treatments. Rather than studying cancer in rodents, this model effectively allows the study of cancer as it develops throughout the human body. I believe this should be a sufficient amount of examples for now, and I will include additional examples and/or arguments if necessary in future rounds. Conclusion- Consider the benefits of animal testing thus far. We have toothpaste, dish soap, and other household items. Now consider the harms of animal testing thus far. We have Clioquinol, Opren, Thalidomide, Vioxx, Isoprenaline, and Rezulin, all of which caused many painful side affects and death to humans. In addition to this, we have approximately 100 million animal deaths as a result of animal testing from medical research. Furthermore, it is more expensive compared to non-animal tests, and is less efficient. From these results, we can conclude that animal testing is expensive, unreliable, deadly, and inhumane; therefore, humans should no longer utilize this form of testing. With that said, I hand over the next round to my opponent and wish him luck. [2] . http://news.change.org... [3] . http://www.peta.org... [4] . http://www.animalaid.org.uk... [5] . http://www.peta.org...

Title: Animal Testing for Cosmetics Content: I love animals but it really comes down to the benefits outweighing the cost. We as humans use and are effected by many things. Testing on animals allows us to be able to test these potentially dangerous drugs and ointments that if proven safe can save more a significantly higher amount of lives then it put in risk. It also allows us to try and figure out how to treat or deal with diseases and vaccines a list of some of medical cures advanced by use of animal subjects include: Penicillin, Blood transfusion, Tuberculosis, Macular degeneration, Asthma, Meningitis, Kidney Transplants, Breast cancer, Parkinson"s disease, and Insulin. The sad truth is that without it we would be possibly denying advancement for treatment of horrible diseases. And yes they should be used sparingly not just subjected to cruelty for no good reason. IACUCs or the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and other similar boards looks to try and minimize this exact things for both medical testing and physiological studies if you are interested look up the IACUC protocol review in which you have to hit three major requirements to be approved for testing.