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

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: 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: Testing on Animals Content: Hello and thanks for the debate! This should be interesting.I will be arguing the position that testing on animals is acceptable in most cases. I will leave Round 2 for you to start the actual debate (I like Round 1 to be acceptance).Again, thanks, and good luck as well!

Title: Animal Testing Content: Hello, this is my first debate, so please tell me if I have any formatting issues. I would like to argue that animal testing (for medical purposes) is acceptable, and that we definitely need it to succeed as a species.

Title: Animal testing Content: We should test on animals

Title: Animal Testing Content: Since I am Pro, I am for animal testing. My opponent has not defined animal testing; therefore, I shall offer a definition I think we can both agree upon. Animal Testing: Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in experiments [1]. I eagerly await my opponent’s opening arguments and wish him luck. With that said, I affirm the resolution, “Animal testing should be allowed”. [1] . http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...

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 for medical research Content: animal testing

Title: animal testing should be allowed Content: Con did not really specify what kind of animal testing, therefore, I am going to assume that ALL kinds of animal testing should not be allowed. I will be arguing that some forms of animal testing should be allowed, specidically for medical purposes. Why is the character limit 750? !? !I have only one point that I will develop in both rounds. Arguments Medical AdvancesTesting on animals has led to numerous medical discoveries and successes that have cured diseases and cancers for humans. For example, if animal testing was banned, small-pox would not have been eradicated. [1]. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...;[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: animal testing is a good thing Content: Animal testing- Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments (although some research about animals involves only natural behaviors or pure observation, such as a mouse running a maze or field studies of chimp troops). Pro can't neither spell nor counter my argument and attempted to point out feeble flaws. The question is rather generalized as well, it depends on your definition of animal testing. The extent where animal testing is a bad thing needs to be drawn somewhere. The line should be drawn where it brings harm to the animal itself. As stated before, There will always be the first human who has to take this test no matter what tests are done. You could do a test a million times over and still there will be the first human. Sure, there will be eventually some 1 or 2 good causes out of animal testing. But at what cost? Millions of animals dead, and more than 95% of the time for no reason at all. Some animal tests that were pronounced good actually led to deaths of the first human tested. Sure you can say "we learn from this" maybe we shouldn't do it to begin with. It would save 16 billion dollars that could be put to a more practical use, like education and health care. How about its time for an argument? Or is it because you have no argument? I'll see you in round 3! Thank you for debating this with me!

Title: Animal testing does more good than harm Content: Animals are not meant to be tested on. They weren't created for us humans to barge in an take control over. Animals were not bred to take part in a potentially dangerous experiment for humans' makeups, fashions, or tests. Heck, tests that are relating to humans aren't even the same when it comes to the question if it works on humans or not! I'm not one of those crazy animal activists, but I can say that if we want to advance our technology or products, testing on animals isn't the way to go. This is a clean debate, 1st and 2nd round for laying out arguments and the 3rd for refutations and ending arguments. I realize that this is a hard topic to argue, but be advised that I have many arguments and refutations to any argument.

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

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

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: The first round is just to state our positions clearly and I thank my opponent in advance for accepting. My position is Animal Testing should not be allowed. There will be no abuse of semantics, dictionaries, literary terms, definitions, and any form of abuse of any kind.

Title: Wierdman's Tourney- Animal Testing Content: BOP-I will be against animal testing. My opponent will be for animal testing. Definitions-Animal Testing: the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs [1]. Rules-1. Although this should not be necessary, there will be no abuse of semantics, wordplay, and/or loopholes. With that said, I hand over the next round to my opponent. And thanks to wierdman, who started this tourney. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...

Title: Medical Research Using Live Animals Content: I believe that using live animals in research is wrong because of the injuries and risks. The animals that are being use are kept in captivity and or killed. If the animal does survive, it is injured and will be kept in captivity for the rest of its life www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk. Experimenting with these animals is a choice between life and pain, but if not death, pain.

Title: Animal Testing Content: I strongly disagree with animal testing. Animals are living creatures, and deserve a chance to live. They cannot tell us what they want, but I am positive that they do not want to be tormented and abused for human-caused problems that modern day science could solve for us.

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 Content: Products can be tested on other materials that are similar to what the product is being used for. Living animals do not have to be used. They are many alternatives.

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

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: Animal Testing Is Unethical Content: Thank you so much, Pro. This has been an enjoyable debate!Let us evaluate this debate. Did Pro establish it is unethical for non-human animals to be tested? Did Con show otherwise?Pro's arguments were built on an absolutist position in which animals are considered very nearly human, and his standards for inhumane, needless, pointless, animal rights were essentially equivalent to human standards. He gave no justification for this. Pro claimed criminal activities of labs, but did not produce evidence to substantiate. In his final argument he advanced animal testing as pointless, however, Con established many ways in which animal testing has proved beneficial and abolition of it harmful. Additionally, Pro briefly argued for Con while advocating micro-dosing. Furthermore, he cited no specific articles. A repository of articles covering many various topics - some of which might argue against Pro, does not substantiation make. On the other hand, Con provided justification for human rights not being extended to animals. Pro's rebuttal (they are completely at our mercy) would essentially give rights to all forms of life (and maybe even inanimate objects!). Rights become meaningless and what is known to be special and rare (rationality) is valued equally with that which is much more common. Con argued animal testing is ethical from a utilitarian perspective. Pro tossed out a red herring by arguing insulin and ovarian function were falsely attributed to animal testing. Con's utilitarian view stands unchallenged. In round 1, Con explained inviability, lack of technology (microfluidic chips), limited use, and non systemic in general prevented other tests from truly being a replacement for animal testing. Pro suggests this has been addressed, but it has not.I hope the readers will find this summary useful. That being said, I thank PinkSheep123 for instigating this debate, and I hope we might meet again. Until then, adieu.

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

Title: Animal testing Content: Animal testing appropriate when there are no alternatives

Title: Animal Testing Content: I have been wanting to debate you for a while! The resolution we will be debating is animal testing. It is defined as: “Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments (although some research about animals involves only natural behaviors or pure observation, such as a mouse running a maze or field studies of chimp troops). ” {1} You may not vary from this definition. (LAYOUT) R1: Pro does rules, con accepts. R2: Pro presents up to 2 arguments, same as con. No rebuttals from con. R3 Pro can rebut and state up to 2 more arguments. Same as con. R4 Same as R3 R5 Pro can rebut and can state up to 2 more arguments. Con can rebut but can not rebut pro’s R5. Con may also present up to 2 new arguments. This round is also used for conclusion. 10,000 characters. 72 hours to post each round. May the best debater win! (CONCLUSION) Again thanks, DDD (REFERENCES) {1} . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Medical testing on animals does more good than harm. Content: Hello GeorgiaAshely. Nice to meet you. First of all, I believe there is a misunderstanding on the topic. The Instigator seems to believe that the topic is discussing whether we should use medical means to carry out experiments to treat animals. But the term "medical testing on animals" is generally accepted as, testing newly made medical substances to assure quality or safety of the medicines before they are sold. Now, I would like to begin developing on my newly suggested and rather accurate definition of the topic. INTRODUCTION On this round, I will introduce a point regarding animal rights and the purpose of carrying out experiments on animals (having their rights completely forsaken) when there are alternatives. On my second round, I will show what medical testing on animals in laboratories really is like, realistically and is often abused. On the third round, I will dig deeper into the topic. I will identify the clashes of the debate, analyze each clash into deeper level and finally, show how my points outweigh the Instigator"s. ARGUMENTATION There are things called animal rights. Animals are entitled of life just like we are. We do not have rights to exploit animal species just for our own benefit. When medical experiments are carried out to animals, usually sample animals are injected of medicine samples which has unknown effect. The medicine might as well have fatal side-effects. The medicine might as well be poisonous. Testing unknown substances on innocent animal is immoral, evil and hypocritical in a society that emphasizes importance of life. We should not consider animal testing similar with butchery. Those animals that are butchered for meat in fact lead a satisfying life in an idealistic environment. They are well fed and are provided of safe and proper shelter. Some ranches even turn on classical music for cows to decrease their stress. As animals, they need not to worry about their safety and food which is the biggest problem that animal species face. When those animals mature after living an idealistic life, they are killed in a way that inflicts minimum pain as possible. These days, animals are electrified with electricity at about 300~500V. This inflicts minimal pain and takes the life at a split second. These animals are born to be eaten anyways. They live a worriless life until their fast and unexpected death. Act of butchery cannot possibly be compared with animal testing. Sample animals suffer excruciating pain until they die off and are incinerated. If there was no alternative, everyone would have admitted that animal testing is a necessary devil. However, it is absolutely untrue. Alternatives for animal testing exist and still are being developed. There are cases where cultured cells were used to carry out experiments. There were successful experiments that used human skin sample to perform safety assurance experiment for cosmetics, for skin corrosion and irritation (MatTek's in vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent). Pharmaceutical product experiments can also be done on donated human blood, on testing its effects and interaction with immune system cells. This is the source where I am coming from. . "Pioneering contract research laboratory CeeTox uses human cell-based in vitro (test tube) toxicity screening to test drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products. These humane tests replace cruel tests that involve pumping substances into animals' stomachs and lungs and dripping chemicals into animals' eyes or onto their raw, shaved skin. In a landmark 2007 report, the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that scientific advances can "transform toxicity testing from a system based on whole-animal testing to one founded primarily on in vitro (non-animal) methods." "Innovative biotechnology firm H"rel has developed a 3-D in vitro (test tube) human "liver" that scientists can use to study the breakdown of chemicals in the human body. This technology effectively mimics human organs and can be used to test cosmetics, drugs, and chemicals. "VaxDesign's groundbreaking Modular IMmune In vitro Construct (MIMIC) system uses human cells to create a working dime-sized human immune system for testing the safety and effectiveness of HIV/AIDS vaccines. This in vitro method is faster than animal tests, can be used to test vaccines on the immune systems of many different human populations at once, and can replace cruel, ineffective tests on animals in which monkeys are infected with HIV-like diseases and forced to endure acute weight loss, major organ failure, breathing problems, and neurological disorders before they die excruciating deaths or are killed. "Researchers with the National Cancer Institute, the U.S military, private companies, and universities across the country have shown that MatTek's in vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent is an excellent substitute for animals when it comes to conducting burn research and cosmetics testing and doing research related to radiation exposure and chemical weapons attacks, etc. "Instead of cutting into and damaging the brains of rats, cats, and monkeys, progressive researchers who are interested in studying the human brain are using advanced human-based brain-imaging and -recording techniques such as MRI, fMRI, EEG, PET, and CT. These modern techniques allow the human brain to be safely studied down to the level of a single neuron (as in the case of intracranial EEG), and researchers can even temporarily and reversibly induce brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Not only do these techniques eliminate the use of animals and the obstacle of interspecies extrapolation, they also provide rich data about the human brain that could not be ascertained through the use of animals. "Antibodies"which are used to research, diagnose, and fight diseases and have traditionally been created by injecting cancer cells into mice"can now be produced using DNA that's made in a laboratory or taken from human cells. "A research method called microdosing can provide vital information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in humans. Volunteers are given an extremely small one-time drug dose that is well below the threshold necessary for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place, and advanced imaging techniques are used to monitor how the drug is broken down in the body. "Ninety-five percent of medical schools across the U.S. have completely replaced the use of animal laboratories in medical training with sophisticated human-patient simulators, virtual-reality systems, computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience. The American Medical Student Association now states that it "strongly encourages the replacement of animal laboratories with non-animal alternatives in undergraduate medical education." Take a look at how many alternatives can be made. The same site also added that those are "just a few examples". If there is a will, there is a way. If we just try to develop and look for ways to find an alternative, we can do it and we did. SUMMARY Experimenting substance samples on animals is inhumane. It undeniably inflicts insufferable pain to animals and is very hypocritical when we value so much among our society, the morals that emphasize importance of life. Such ridiculous tradition on inflicting pain on innocent animals can even be abolished with the help of modern science. There exists plenty alternatives. Human skin cell imitations, computer simulations, MRIs and donated human blood are just few examples of functioning alternative. When there is an alternative, there is no need to carry out animal testing that violates animal rights in the first place.

Title: Animal Testing. Content: I agree to debate animal testing with you. I would like you to clarify when you feel it is and isn't okay to use animal testing. With specific examples, if possible. I don't think we have the right to experiment on another living creature without their consent.

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

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

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

Title: Animal Testing Content: My opponent has copy/pasted the above segment from PETA's website: https://www.peta.org...;Why I am Pro on Animal TestingFirstly, if animals were not tested on, many forms medical treatment would not be available to humans as the research necessary would of course not have been conducted. It isn't merely medical products that are tested on animals (though, they would constitute the most important). Virtually most of the artificially-constructed products that we use, have been tested on animals. One large source of animal testing is the beauty industry, so most mainstream cosmetic countries continue to test on animals - the ethics of this, I admit, are questionable. It's important to distinguish between animal testing done for the medical reasons and the benefit of mankind and animal testing that is done purely for superficial reasons. In regards to other products that are tested on animals - sadly, some of these are necessary. Chemical cleaning fluids are included within that bracket. The case of more than 12 women being blinded in 1933 upon using a cleaining product that contained an untested chemical named p-phenylenediamine is an example of what can happen when animals are not tested on. Not so long after this incident (and this alludes to my point about drug saftey), an antibacterial medicine named 'Elixir Sulfanilamide', which was specifically made for children, was not tested and 107 people died as a result - the majority being minors. Now, when drugs for humans are tested on, you have what is referred to as the 'pre-clinical trials', and this is when animals are used. If all appears well in these trials and no adverse effects are observed, the next stage is the 'clinical trials', with phases 1, 2, 3, and 4. [1.] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Naturally, if animals were not tested on in the pre-clinical trials, and the pre-clinical trials were removed, humans would be tested on first and this could potentially cause many deaths. Although Con plagiarized his argument, I will respond to one point from it; which is that animals used in laboratories are not protected and are forced to endure pain. The 1988 Animal Welfare Enforcement Report by the Department of Agriculture found that '94% of all laboratory animals reported are not exposed to painful procedures or are given drugs to relieve any pain caused by a procedure' - meaning that the majority of tested animals are not subjected to continual pain. [2.] https://www.nap.edu...

Title: An alternative for animal testing should be found. Content: Once again, I"m not sure you fully understand. I am against Animal Testing as a whole, therefor I feel that an alternative to Animal Testing should be found and I am for (Pro), that we find another alternative for animal testing. So, in fact you have just helped me to prove my argument, which I appreciate, because we feel the same way regarding this topic. :) As I understand, the person going (Pro) for, this argument should then state why they think that a alternative for animal testing should NOT be found, and prove that animal testing is a good and civil form of medical research. Since they are then (Pro) for, Animal Testing. (I am (Con) against, animal testing, therefore I am (Pro) for, finding an alternative to animal testing). Or should the Pro and Con depend on the subject of your topic (an alternative for animal testing should be found) rather than the the topic itself (Animal Testing)? Then, I fully understand the confusion. This is only my second debate, so I've I'm doing it wrong you're more than welcome to inform me? :)

Title: Animal Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals Content: Well since my opponent forfeited this round I think i'll just put a few points to clarify my stance. 1. We use animals for testing because they allow the widest range for testing per sample, and they are the most efficient means monetarily. A) They allow us to test for toxicity in a "life cycle" that is, to test what effect it a sample could have over-time. B) There are so many things that if not tested correctly can lead to severe consequences on humans. Animal testing right now is the only sure way to test these chemicals. If left to alternatives at the current state, there are too many openings in which a toxic agents could pass and harm humanity. 2. We do not use alternatives right now for several reasons A) The alternatives cost more. B) The alternatives do not allow full-body test. C) Many of the alternatives at the moment are not validated and in the early testing phase. I'd also like to note that the cosmetic industry is for profit. If the alternative treatments were cheaper or more efficient even by a reasonable amount the researchers would use them instead in a heartbeat. If the researchers only had to use a small vial or kit instead of animal maintenance, they would. It's just not at that stage right now and the alternatives just don't have the range or efficiency of animal testing. Thanks for the debate, sorry for the forfeits on either side, vote whoever you want.

Title: Animal Testing Content: I believe that animals should not be tested on because it is cruel and inhuman. Animals cannot fight back do to humans having opposable thumbs. I believe animals should be able to live free and live life on there own

Title: animal testing is a good thing Content: con criticizes testing when it's done only for curiosity. we should be arguing about doing it when it's just then, not saying ban it all. con says it's a waste of time cause not all tests work on both mice and humans. so, that only means the tests dont always work. it dosn't mean they don't do some good, and give us guidance. so we should continue for teh benefit that it does give us. con gave a bunch of practical point, less about ideology or core values. but, his practical points turned out to be flawed reasons to stop animal testing.

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

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: I, the contender, shall prove my case that you shouldn't ban animal testing. My first statement will be the definition of animal testing if you didn't know. Animal testing Is basically a system in which major companies test their products on different types of animal species. Many people have been against this statement, such as a girl who died in the process of protecting an endangered species. But, if we banned animal testing, we would have to test it on plants or humans! Imagine someone saying, "Hey! It works! This mushroom is reacting to this medical operation! These arguments prove the declaration of how animal testing should be banned."

Title: Animal testing should stop Content: To keep things fair, giving each debater an equal amount of rounds to argue, I will not post any arguments this round. Also, to be clear, I will argue that animal testing should remain a standard of product/medicine testing. Disclaimer: I will approach this debate without bias. This indicates that I am not supporting animal testing, nor am I disagreeing with it. I am simply taking the Con side to this debate, and I will not reveal my true beliefs on this subject. Looking forward to a clean, well-versed debate. Thanks!

Title: This house will ban animal testing Content: I will rebut PRO's content in the third round paragraph by paragraph. Paragraph 1PRO's response to my call for him/her to distinguish between other acts of humanity that involve the suffering of animals for the betterment of human lives is the rhetorical of "do you need to do it with animals? " (to which, of course, I would answer yes, and PRO would realise that my answer is yes if he/she had actually taken the liberty to read my arguments). PRO ignores my refutations that animals do not inherently have so-called 'rights' without bringing up a logical criterion of his own, and ignores the fact that, as per my first rebuttal in the previous round, even if we assume that animals have rights, he/she has still needs to tell us how the rights of animals can be equal to or superior to that of conflicting human rights. It seems that all of my rebuttals have fallen on deaf ears. When I said that animal testing is another way of humans utilising our intelligence to our advantage, I am comparing the doctrinal similarities between animal testing and behaviours which are socially acceptable, such as killing animals for food. What PRO needs to do at this point is to either distinguish these two on a principle level, or argue that both are not socially acceptable at all. Bombarding me with the message that animals are living, breathing creatures does not, to the slightest of extents, fulfill any of this. Speaking of PRO's undying commitment to remind me and the audience that animals are living creatures, we notice that PRO's entire argument in this respect can be summarised into the following: "Animals have rights because they are living things and living things have rights". This is a circular argument founded on the unproven claim as to why living things should have rights, and PRO has yet to tell us why that is the case. Paragraph 2PRO essentially concedes his/her stance when he/she says "Yes, but not always". Putting aside the fact that this claim is accompanied with no evidence, this counterargument still does not stand in a number of ways. In the event that animal testing is used when other methods are not available, that is the problem with the execution and implementation of animal testing, and the fault should be burdened on the scientists and authorities who chose to opt for animal testing when other methods were adequate and sufficient, not burdened on the concept of 'animal testing' itself. We are here to argue the overall conceptual legitimacy of animal testing, and individual cases are by no means enough to corrupt the doctrinal integrity of animal testing. Analogically speaking, one would not claim that food is unhealthy for the human body just because there have been instances where food ingestion has choked people to death. That can only be attributed to the poor eating skills of those people, not the food itself. Paragraph 3PRO seems befuddled with my argument on how animal testing can pose a win-win scenario for both man and animal. When I say that there is "no impact" and then proceed to use the word "benefit" in the same sentence, I am saying that animal testing that there are two scenarios that can happen to an animal when it is being tested on, assuming the testing is carried out in accordance to all rules and regulations and no unexpected incidents occur:1. That the animal is left unharmed, both physically and psychologically2. That the animal (or rather, its species) benefits from the findings of the testThese two are mutually exclusive. I, too, would be dumbfounded if the animal were to benefit and not be impacted by the testing at the same time, but that was not what I was trying to convey. I hope this clarification answers PRO's queries. Paragraph 4By the time we get round to the fourth paragraph, we've already seen the word 'cruel' quite a few times. Why is animal testing, despite my side of the house demonstrating that animals need not suffer, and that it is beneficial to both parties involved, cruel? And if so, what is wrong with being 'cruel' in the first place? Would you say that killing animals for food is not cruel? Would you say that prisoners relish upon the prospect of being locked up in a cell and that they do not find it to be cruel at all? For PRO to make the 'cruel' argument sufficient enough to uphold his stance, he/she must also try and disprove the appropriateness of hunting for food and imprisonment for criminals, something that I have repeatedly called on him/her to do and is something that has not been done. I applaud PRO's relentless attempts to tap into our tear glands, but getting us to imagine a role reversal where the animals are the researchers and humans are being tested on is borderline comedic. PRO has provided us with no reasoning as to why animals would not enjoy the experience of being tested on, and continues to build upon that baseless assertion with a second baseless assertion that is that animals "feel the same way we do". I don't particularly enjoy being eaten, but that doesn't mean I'm not on good terms with my moral conscience when I sit down and feast on a nice steak. Paragraph 5PRO says that "no one needs to know about human rights", which is confusing considering that one of his main arguments concerns the entitlement of animal rights. Even if we do assume that the topic of 'human rights' and the source that I've used on this topic bears no relevance to the debate, by no means does that make it a 'bad source'. PRO lacks a criterion for what a bad source exactly is, and lacks justification as to why PDF sources are so-called 'bad sources'. I would also like to remind PRO that the usage of 'good sources' doesn't exempt one from using circular and pathos arguments, which, frankly, are arguments which do a disservice to those 'good sources'. Why do you vote CON? Vote CON because CON was the only side of the house which argued on the practical and principle implications for both the animals and humans involved in the matter of animal testing. CON was the only side of the house to characterise what it really means to be tested on in animal testing, and CON was the only side that was morally consistent down the bench.

Title: Animal Testing Content: Con: Animal Rights By many accounts, animal testing often means that that animals are not treated humanely. According to Santa Clara University, approximately 8 million animals are exposed to painful testing procedures, and at least 10 percent of these do not receive painkillers. 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. Some feel that it does not follow that a human --- Earth's most highly developed animal --- is considered more valuable than any other animal. 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. Con: Expense Animal testing is notoriously expensive, and also very time-consuming. According to Care2, scientific professionals in the U.S. have used approximately $20 million in taxpayer money on animal experiments that are deemed "arbitrary and pointless." Animal testing in general costs more than non-animal testing, since it requires additional lab equipment, such as animal food, cages and needles, and usually takes a lot more time. Animal activists argue that many animals experiments aren't necessary in the first place --- like testing cocaine on monkeys --- and don't contribute vital information to the scientific community. Con: Necessity Individuals in the scientific and animal rights community alike maintain that most experiments leading to life-saving scientific breakthroughs could have been done just as easily without using animals. Some scientists even believe that non-animal testing produces more accurate results than animal testing. Advances in stem cell research, for example, may well render animal testing pointless in the future. In addition, according to Living Cruelty Free, the safety of a product or procedure on an animal does not always translate over to human safety, due to "interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry." Lots of experiments performed using cosmetics and other household items are not necessary, because many popular companies do not test on animals. These companies are labeled "cruelty-free" by PETA.1. Animals are killed or kept in captivity: In animal testing, countless animals are experimented on and then killed after their use. Others are injured and will still live the remainder of their lives in captivity. Function Animal testing is used to see how a product could possible effect humans, animals and the environment. The different demands for animal testing come from the medical field, household products, agricultural chemicals, industrial chemicals, pesticides, paint, food additives and beauty products. Types 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 students I have not seen any information for preserving animal testing plus Wikipedia literally anyone can put something on Wikipedia and it could be wrong

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: Animal testing is a good thing. While it is not the only possibility, the alternatives are worse. I therefore advocate the continuation of animal testing. First, I will explain the other possibilities I can see. First, we could test products not on animals, but on humans. Second, we could not test products at all. Both of these lead to the same dreadful end: those same misfortunes that are sometimes brought upon animals would be brought upon humans instead. This is by no means more fair than the alternative, and by most viewpoints, it is a far worse crime (humans are generally considered to have more worth than animals). Now, let me expand upon my argument. We are a people in the habit of harming other beings in order to help ourselves. Unfortunately, it is something that simply must be done: the human race, as well as most other species, rely on harming other life to prosper. A predator kills its prey - are you against the food chain? People, too, kill animals for food - are you advocating vegetarianism? People also take advantage of animals to make other products, including some food and fabric - are you advocating the discontinuation of this practice? People kill bacteria that are living inside them - are you advocating the disuse of medicine? Construction ends the lives of trees - are you advocating that it too is wrong? Animal testing should be done, as should all the things above. Why? Because they are helpful practices for us to use. In none of the examples above did the victim 'ask' for it, but sometimes you get something you didn't ask for. My opponent is correct when he says that animals have no voice, and we must speak for them. However, that voice is clearly and justifiably saying that we should continue testing on animals. Without testing on animals, all the negative consequences that are currently given to the animals would be given to humans instead. What next, should we become cannibals to satisfy our need for meat? We, just as every other type of animal out there does, place some of our own burdens onto other beings. A cow gets hungry? He eats some grass. A lion gets hungry? He eats a cow. A beaver wants to make a dam? He destroys some trees. A man needs a jacket and a meal? He kills a cow. A man needs to test a new product or do research? When he can, he places this burden on another lifeform. It is a matter of self interest, and I see no justifiable reason to betray it. I look forward to my opponent's response.

Title: animal testing should be allowed Content: Rebuttal"99% of the animals that are tested are dead and thrown in the garbage"I highly doubt that is true at all. You have no source backing your statement. For all we know, you made up that statistic. "now imagine someone tested perfume on you."You made it unclear whether we are talking about animal testing for cosmetics or all animal testing. I agree that testing cosmetics on animals should be banned, but does not merit animal testing for medical purposes being banned. Argument[2] medical progress requires animal testing. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...;[1] http://www.amprogress.org...;[2]

Title: This house will ban animal testing Content: RebuttalsIn Con's first argument which was that In essence, animal testing is just another way humans utilising our intelligence to our advantageI just want to say that, Do you need to do it with animals? Animals are living things like us so it is wrong to just have a experiement which might kill the animal when it is a living thing. That is just plain cruel. Also they have the right to not get harmed because it is the same thing. Elephants might kill people on there experiments. Is that fair? And many people use lab rats which are also animals but many people don't think they are.In Con's second argument which was, Animal testing is only used when other alternatives are inadequate. Yes, but not always. We do not just test things if it is wrong. It says that they tested an animal but it got killed. It wasn't wrong. It was perfect. But they just did it one last time, then it died.In Con's third argument which was that Animal testing has the potential to benefit both humanity and the animal, I just don't get it. In the third paragraph Con said that there is no impact, but why did you say it is a benifit? Also we are not sure. A lot of testing is successful, but an animal might die.And also in Con's rebuttal when she said they don't have a right, that means that animals have no freedom to act and we rule the animals. That is just cruel and we should stop it. Lets go to the animal perspective. The animal has to be tested with chemicals that are dangerous when it can be free. The animal wants to go around too. Lets feel if the animal tests us. Would we like being tested. Of course we won't. Then what about the animal. The animal feels the same way we do.Also about your sources. Your sources aren't really good because no one needs to know about human rights. Also you have a pdf.Sources Usedhttp://idebate.org... http://www.createdebate.com...https://cus.org... http://www.smallworlds.com...http://www.neavs.org... http://www.merriam-webster.com... Please vote for Pro!!!

Title: Animal experimetation should be banned around the world Content: Each person has own opinion and I disagree with you because everything which I have already written it has connection with the main topic called " Animal experimentation should be banned around the world" and I am trying to prove my point of view by several arguments. In fact, have only four rounds and I have to add everything on these a few rounds. I support you that modern technologies are more expensive than animal testing, but I have just emphasized that it is one time investment while animal experimentation, you have to keep paying for it. Moreover, animals need to be breed, they need meal and so on. Yeah, I agree with you that your arguments are strong too but I am sure with a modern technologies we may receive the same result. Why? Because of the fact we want to avoid from cruel relationships with animals. Now I want to tell about the brands which people use, exactly women prefer to use them in a daily life. If the cheaper product, the smaller chance it is tested on animals. All the big brands such as L"oreal, Maybaline and Max Factor and so on tested on animals. Otherwise, there are several brands that are test free such as Yves Rocher and Estee Lauder. And let"s face it, why should we pay for mascara that is just as good as that one of 5 euro"s??? Let"s consider it, why not economy 10 euro??? If we completely use animal testing, we will waste our money. As you remember, I have just emphasized that new techniques need only one time investment. In conclusion, I believe you will consider about my arguments. As you know, the aim of my state is to prove that animal testing should be banned around the world. We just want to avoid from cruel relationships with animal. Yeah, I remember you have told about safe experiments on animals. Otherwise, if we completely use this type of testing, I am sure we will waste much money than only one investment with modern technologies. At the end, I want add that European Union wanted to enforce the ban on animal testing of cosmetics, enters into force on March. It means European Union is against too with animal experimentation. Thanks for interesting debate. (Kazakhstan)

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 s should be banned. Content: I agree with 'Animal testing'. It is necessary experiments for human. What if we don't do 'Animal testing' ?? . Which organism will be the subject of experiment ? Sacrifices can be during experiments. But, it will save more lifes. It must be valueable sacrifices. That animals are fed to experiment, which is similar to meat. If we ban 'Animal testing', that must work to meat in same way too.

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

Title: An alternative for animal testing should be found. Content: Well, it seems that you did not read the very first sentence I had typed. Since the resolution says "An alternative for animal testing should be found," and you are Con (against), then you are against "finding an alternative for animal testing". Therefore you essentially concede.

Title: The United States should ban Animal Testing. Content: I am Con. I will negate the proposition that the United States should ban animal testing. Definitions:"The use of non-human animals in research and development projects, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs" . http://www.dictionary.com... Rules: No Ad Hominhem Attacks keep this debate civil guys.

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

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

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

Title: Animal testing. Content: What is animal testing? http://en.wikipedia.org... I will allow my opponent to make the opening argument.

Title: Animal Testing Content: I accept. I'm looking forward to a fun debate. I would ask the judges to keep their own personal views on animal testing out of their decision, and simply judge based on the merit of our arguments. Good luck DDD.

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: While it is possible that my opponent happens to have posted this very same argument across various websites, it is such a change in style that I cannot help but wonder if it is plagiarized [1]. My opponent may work for PETA [2], but I personally am highly skeptical as to the originality of these arguments.Still, I will counter these arguments anyway.Con writes '[A]nimal testing is often extremely cruel and completely unnecessary. For example, I once saw some undercover footage from a laboratory in which dogs were being force-fed weedkiller.'One anecdote is hardly sufficient to determine a general pattern.Con writes 'Scientifically, testing products meant for humans on animals is unreliable and potentially dangerous.'My opponent has failed to respond to my sourced arguments about all the medicines and techniques developed using animal testing, preferring instead his/her/its own theorizing.Con writes 'My personal view is that products meant for humans should be tested on humans. It's the only way to know if they will work as intended, and we have the choice of whether or not to volunteer for testing'Of course products should be tested on humans, but they should be tested on animals first.Con writes 'Our greater intelligence gives us a responsibility to protect other species, not the right to use and abuse them in any way we see fit - that should be abhorrent to any sentient, compassionate being.'Animal testing also helps animals:'Animals also have improved healthcare and a longer lifespan. Farm animals, household pets, wild species and endangered species are all benefiting from the research conducted through animals. There are vaccines for rabies, distemper, tetanus, parvo virus and numerous other illnesses in cats, dogs and countless other domesticated animals. Cats now have a treatment for Feline Leukemia.' [3]What personally seems more abhorrent to me is to let the far more valuable humans die/suffer over other species. One who doesn't care for his own species is a failure.Con writes 'It's unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear.'Why? It helps humans.Con writes 'It's bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans.'How does that make it bad science?Con writes 'It's wasteful. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research.'Bare assertion.Con writes 'It's archaic.'Actually, we'd probably still be stuck in the middle ages (medicinally) if we never used animal testing.Con writes 'The world doesn't need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals' lives.'But we could use a cure for cancer so badly that it should come at the expense of animals' lives.ConclusionMy opponent has not directly addressed any of my arguments, and has preferred to copy/paste some arguments off the internet. I am very disappointed.Sources: 1. http://ph.answers.yahoo.com...;2. http://www.peta.org...;3. http://www.pro-test.org.uk...;

Title: animal testing be banned Content: Of course we need someone to test our medicines on. I agree with you but then there is no sense In trying there tests on animals. They are genetically so different from us. Let's take rat for example. We test the polio vaccine on them. Does this even make any sense. Like really how can you test a medicine made for a mammal on a primate. This is wrong. A medicine that is good for us can harm them and one okay for them may harm us.

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

Title: animal testing should be banned Content: Since my opponent forfeited this round again, I will extend my argument and conclude my opinion.In conclusion, I disagree that animal testing should be banned. Animal testing will save the lives of living things and even the animals themselves. Also, animals are really similar to humans. The source for experiment is not replaceable that animals need to be used. Vote for Con!!!!

Title: animal testing Content: Of course animal testing had a big value in medicine in the past. but nowadays it is not so profitable. Animal experimentations not always helps. the reason is that animals are not like humans. they have different genes, organism, different reactions to decease and so on. They do not suffer from all human diseases, so scientists have to give them the illnesses artificially. These tests do not always work because animals do not react to drugs in the same way as humans. Aspirin, for example, damages pregnant mice and dogs, but not pregnant women. That is why I'm against of animal testing

Title: Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found. Content: Thank you, Blah. Unfortunately, every single one of my opponent's sources in his first constructive round fail to lead to relevant source material. Link [1], for example, leads straight to the wikipedia homepage, link [2] and [3] leads to its respective homepages, etc. Most of my opponent's links are simply inaccessible. However, I will still address my opponent's points despite its not having real source material to give them the weight they were intended to have. My opponent can attempt to reproduce the links in the next round if he so wishes, but I will refute his points here and now.ClarificationsFirst I would like to address what I perceive to be an attempt at a semantic exploit of the resolution. My opponent, in an attempt to refute the relevancy of my negative case, says "An alternative is different to a replacement because alternatives are not permanent changes to the status quo, and we can alternate through alternatives."However, in his constructive round, my opponent explicitly states: "we need to find another method to replace animal testing in biomedical research"That we are debating a replacement to animal testing is also very clearly stipulated by the resolution as it asks whether or not we should find to find an alternative for animal testing. It does not as whether or not we should be looking for alternatives. The resolution clearly asks for one method to replace animal testing altogether, and my opponent's first constructive round indicates the same.So to reclarify: this debate is about whether or not an alternative for animal testing should be found. The negative case argues that animal testing is both necessary and irreplaceable; that there is nothing that can make up for animal testing.==C1 - Mistreatment of Tested Animals==My opponent claims that scientists 'aren't at all careful' when testing on animals. This is an assertion that I will disprove in a couple moments. He then gives us an anecdote of a primate having its eyelid sewn shut. While a trial may or may not have been conducted with care, a trial's procedural result, i.e. i.e. having a sewn eyelid, does not say anything about whether or not the procedure is executed with care. "One of the most important, but unknown facts about biomedical research is that just like at your pet’s veterinarian’s office, there are research veterinarians, husbandry specialists and animal health technicians – people who care deeply for animals – ensuring that animals in research receive the highest quality of care. These well-trained professionals work directly with researchers to minimize discomfort or distress, two factors that affect the well-being of animals as well as the quality of the data collected in the study."[1]"Research institutions are required to have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). IACUCs approve and review research protocols, ensure that anesthesia and postoperative medications are used when appropriate, and that alternatives to animals are sought out and integrated into studies whenever possible. Most institutions go above and beyond regulatory requirements by volunteering to have their programs reviewed every three years by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). This accreditation process is very stringent and institutions with AAALAC accreditation are known for their commitment to excellence and humane animal care."[1]The scientific community is neither careless nor inhumane. It already uses as many non-animal alternatives to testing whenever possible. However, there exists no single alternative that can completely supplant the entirety of living systems provided by animals. I'd like to reinvoke the following passage from my previous round: "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."[2]Non-animal pre-clinical tests include all those that animals rights activists believe should be used. However, no proponent of animal testing ever declared that 94% of drugs that pass non-animal tests fail in human tests. Such a statement would be an inacccurate lie that ignores the fact that preclinical tests include animal testing.==C2 - Animal tests are unreliable=="I have not failed, Ive just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -Thomas EdisonThe lightbulb was known to have taken about 1000 trials before it was successfully invented. That is 1 trial of success out of about 999 trials of failure, a measly 0.1% success rate or a monumental 99.9% rate of failure. That's what trials are for: testing every possible facet that needs testing until it works. Compared with the 90% rate by which the FDA rejects drugs that pass clinical trials, the biomedical community is working with relatively reasonable odds.And again, I refer to the inaccuracy of the 90% statement on failure of clinical trials as it ignores what the preclinical trials actually are.While preclinical trials do produce practical products only 10% of the time, this 10% has saved the lives of countless millions. Insulin, for example, currently sustains the lives of over 20 million human beings in the United States alone. Again, I would like to elicit the following passage from my previous round: “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] Whatever harms animal testing might bring upon the human or animal community may or may not be an issue, but the benefits of animal testing saves the lives and livelihood of an immense quantity of animals and people. I believe on a cost benefit analysis, the benefits greatly outweigh the costs.==C3 - Despite...costly==C3 is reliant on C2, which is based on tests' failures. I believe my response above addresses most of C3. Is money put into animal testing actually wasted? My opponent claims that there is 16 billion dollars put into animal testing, but I've shown that animal testing is clearly beneficial. What it provides to society more than justifies its costs.Blah's Rebuttals"human testing is another alternative to animal testing" - BlahNo. Humans are animals, and all arguments that can be made against animal testing, such as pain, suffering, etc. can be made with human testing. In suggesting this, my opponent presents us with a massive double standard which favors animals over humans. This suggestion severely undermines my opponents case. We as humans generally value individual humans more than we do other individual species, and subjective or not, human lives are more important than, say, the lives of mice.“There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans. It is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to humans" - Neavs, MacLennan and AmmosI've presented clear examples, i.e. surgical tests, that show that animal data can and has been extrapolated directly to humans."we should rely on alternatives that are much more trustworthy and productive"And what alternatives are these? "My adversary's entire contention relies on one single event, yet he attempts to use this to prove his entire case correct. But this is completely irrelevant."I refer to my refutation to my opponent's C2."humans and non-human animals have different internal immune systems and system structure, not about the genetic makeup, which defines what a living thing looks like." - BlahHumans may differ from non-human animals, but if they were so different as to be unreliable, how come we've been able to derive real results from them? In fact, petri dish cells have no internal immune system and system structure. My opponent later goes on to declare that other methods, such as petri-culture testing, is more accurate and better than animal testing. I declare this a false assertion. Even if non-animal testing methods may be more effective in some cases, not all cases can dispense with animal testing. There is no replacement that can duplicate the results of an entire living system besides another whole living system. It is impossible to ascertain whether a heart bypass works, for example, without conducting an actual heart bypass. Computer simulations and petri-dish examinations can only show so much."all living things are animals" - MeIn context to my rhetoric, this refers to all living things with animal functionalities and systems which are obviously animals. My opponent attempts a negation with a grammatical technicality. I refer to rule number 3.ConclusionC1 and C2 fail under countercases. C3 fails from the failures of C2. Moreover, I believe the negative constructive case is insufficiently addressed thus remains affirmed.[1] http://www.amprogress.org...[2] http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...[3] http://www.uky.edu...[4] http://cvma.net...

Title: Animal tests proceed only when animal suffering is "worth it" Content: The potential human benefits of a particular animal test are typically weighed against the harms that it will entail for animals. Scientists are not wanton in inflicting tests on animals. Rather, they are often bound to meet specific ethical requirements in the trade-off. The harm of the testing must be thought "worth it" for the benefits that it will produce. animal research is justified because it has reducing human suffering.

Title: Animal Testing Content: animal testing is good because animals can be controlled in certain environments. I think it's good because this method protects people from harmful effects of using products that have not been previously tested.

Title: We should have lab rats in labatories Content: Alright, thanks to logical-master123 for challenging me to this debate. I'll start with some overviews. OV1) Let's be clear what this debate is about. The question here is whether or not lab rats should be used in laboratories, and as such, I will specifically defend the use of lab rats bred for the purpose. But it should also be noted what I'm not defending. I'm not forced to defend animal cruelty, nor am I required to defend specific labs or types of experiements. As long as I show that lab rats should be used in some laboratories, that's sufficient for me to win this debate. OV2) The burden of proof in this debate is on Con, since he's arguing against the status quo. He's stating that we must necessarily exclude lab rats as a type of animal testing in the laboratory. In fact, his case applies to all lab animals and not just rats, and as such he is required to either defend a better means for accomplishing these goals, or eschew lab tests as a whole. Onto rebuttals. 1. Death and harm Con's C1-C3 all might as well come under this heading. Con strays from the prompt. He starts this contention talking about rats, and then shifts to mice. Mice are non-topical, by Con's own definitions. I see this as an effort by Con to push me to defend all animal testing rather than just testing of rats, which is all I have to do. This does expand HIS burden, though. Risk exists, independent of the test subject. But pre-clinical trials are extremely important for establishing safety, which absolutely must be done. So, what should we test? Note that these mice aren't getting captured. They're often bred specifically for the lab, which means they've only known captivity. If scientists didn't do this, they would have to capture them and bring them into the lab. I'd personally say that that's worse, but more importantly, they would lose a number of genetic mutants that make it possible to understand the effects of certain treatments.[1] Without that knowledge, it would be impossible to study things like diabetes, kidney disease, immune system disorders, inflammation, allergic response, transplantation, and countless other problems that don't occur similarly in any animal aside from humans. Con's also unclear on why it matters that we treat mice (or rats) poorly. There are plenty of reasons why humans are preferred to mice, in particular our cognitive abilities make us capable of understanding right from wrong (and yes, if mice suddenly garner that understanding, I would argue against lab testing on them). I'll grant that damage to their populations and freedom is a moral hazard, though I'd say the fact that these are lab-bred rodents means that they were granted their very lives by the system Con's so thoroughly against, which means he's also arguing against the existence of these lives. 2. Lab Rats Spread Disease Con doesn't seem to realize that neither any cancer nor Parkinson's Disease are infectious.[2, 3] Unless we give an infectious disease to rodents and then don't take adequate precautions (they do [4]), there's no risk to humans from testing diseases in rodents. 3. Con's "Solution" Con says we should test in humans. First, we actually do " they're called clinical trials.[5] What Con is advocating for is extending the testing of drugs to humans in preclinical trials. Second, Con doesn't realize that preclinical studies are safety tasting. What he's advocating here is for those studies to go on first in humans, which will either encounter the same problems as with rodents (only this time with people, who can sue for damages), or no one will touch it, which will bring drug development to a halt. Third, studies in humans aren't necessarily good substitutes. Understanding treatment over a lifetime and intergenerationally can be very important. That's something we're able to do in rats very easily, but in humans it would take decades of monitoring. He says that we may one day be able to test in robots. First, we can't do this now, and so this suggestion is merely a science fiction dream. Second, even if we get robots akin to animals, they will never perfectly simulate a living system, The inherent complexity of that system will always be beyond our understanding. What Con's case amounts to is basically one large appeal to emotion. He presents a nice picture, talks about all the poor rodents, and basically ignores the issue of why we use rodents in labs at all. Now, onto my case. To be clear, what I'm arguing for is a continuation of the status quo. Treatment of animals should continue to be regulated to ensure that they're housed well and that they suffer as little as possible. With that, onto the why. 1. Harms to other animals Again, looking back at the resolution, all I have to do is affirm that we should continue to use rats. Con appears to be very concerned about mice. If rats are pulled out of labs, then those labs will simply replace them with mice. If they don"t replace them with mice, they"ll replace them with one of the dozens of other animals they have access to: dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits, pigs, and primates, for example.[] By using lab-grown rats, I"m reducing harms to most of these populations, many of which aren"t bred in the lab. 2. Importance of rats to studies I pointed this out earlier, but rats are a very genetically malleable organism. What that means is that there are multiple mutants of rats that have been bred in order to study certain diseases in rats that otherwise wouldn"t be present. This is impossible with most other organisms, mainly due to limitations in breeding and transgenic technologies. Rats, therefore, represent a necessary model for studying disease states and treatments, particularly because their behavior and physiology is more relevant to humans than other rodents.[1] It"s for this reason that the amount of scientific literature that has been produced using rats as a model species is staggeringly large, with rats and mice making up 95% of all animal research and rats being used 50% more often than mice.[1, 7] We can attribute the vast majority of pharmaceuticals and treatment methods to rats first and foremost. 3. Why we should care We should be most concerned with the continued survival and quality of life of our own species. Our preservation should come first and foremost, and as long as that requires doing studies in other organisms, that"s what we have to do. I know this sounds anthropocentric, but Con isn"t really seeking to protect all animals anyway since he"s just trying to prevent scientists from harming this particular rodent. If he really cared, he"d be extending this to all life forms tested in the laboratory, though that would require that we consider the countless insects and even bacteria tested in labs across the country. He provides no particular reason why rats are special, and we cannot realistically stop all research with every form of life that exists without dooming humanity to death by the next plague that comes our way. Sure, in a perfect world, no creature would have to endure harm, but we don"t live in a perfect world, and we cannot function solely based off of a sense of empathy with some lab-grown rats. The facts are as follows: nearly every medical breakthrough in recent history has resulted directly from research using animals, particularly when it comes to vaccines, cancers, and heart disease.[8] Rats make up a substantial proportion of these. The alternatives for animal testing simply aren't ready to replace them. Moreover, even if we care about animals, the research helps them as well, offering treatments to many diseases that afflict both them and humans.[9] The benefits are clear. With that, I hand the debate back to Con. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://bit.ly... 3. http://1.usa.gov... 4. http://bit.ly... 5. http://1.usa.gov... 6. http://bit.ly... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://bit.ly... 9. http://bit.ly...

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

Title: Animal Experimentation Content: Not all animals are used for experimenting though I agree the world would be horrible without animals. However testing can help cure animals too. People say we violate there rights but we can't for they have no rights to violate. if we did not experiment on these animals then it would harm humans. I understand people may hate for them to be hurt but it comes down to them or us.

Title: Animals Should Be Treated Equally Content: The first two paragraphs of my opponent"s case were not used to make arguments, the first one was restating the resolution while the second paragraph was giving information about animal testing. Pro only states, "Animal testing is a prime example of humans exerting power over helpless lab animals.", which does not express an argument, therefore there is no rebuttal needed for the first two paragraphs, but I would point out that my opponent is saying we shouldn"t test drugs on animals, which leads to the advancement of cures and medicine. Without testing on animals, we would have to test it on humans, but my opponent can not argue that humans should be tested instead, since the resolution calls for equality. However, my opponent could argue that both animals and humans should be tested and the quote provided demonstrates that, but then it wouldn"t have impact on the resolution. In my opponent"s third paragraph, two arguments are made. Firstly, zoos lead to unnecessary deaths to the zoo workers, and secondly, the space animals get in zoos is equivalent to the space humans get in bathtubs The latter is not equivalent since a human lying down barely has any wiggle room, while the animals in zoos sometimes have cages as big as a house. Addressing the former, I subject my opponent to proving that the amount of zoo workers dying is impactful enough to get of zoos. By observation, zoo worker deaths are not common, and removing zoos because of a few deaths would lead to further removing things that are ridiculous to remove. Like sports and certain medicine since sometimes there are deaths involved which could have been avoided by not participating in the activity, which would be the same reasoning for zoo workers. . "No need to get me started on slaughterhouses; this video should cover it." This is not an argument so no rebuttal needed here. Now, in my opponent"s last statement, he/she states that humans do not have the right to abuse animals. However, the resolution states animals should be treated equally, equally does not entail anything about not being able to abuse. If both animals and humans were abused, then they would be considered equal. What equality entails, is that both are considered the same, but since my opponent conceded that we are somewhat superior, "All in all, I think humans feel superior**** to all other forms of life on this Earth which isn't necessarily untrue but it definitely doesn't constitute the right to abuse animals", then we have somewhat of a difference in status, therefore my opponent conceded that humans are not equal to animals in status, therefore if pro says humans aren"t equal to animals, then this pretty much refute my opponent"s case. To put it simply, my opponent is arguing animal should be treated equally, equally means of same status (at least), however my opponent says humans aren"t equal in status, therefore humans can not be equal to animals. Treating animals equally would mean not being able to eat animal meat, since we as humans, don"t do that to other humans. But this would eventually lead to disorder amongst the food chain, and also would inconvenience, and even indirectly lead to the deaths of people looking for sustenance, since starving humans generally don"t eat other people for sustenance. Peace out fam.

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: Should heart transplants on animals be legal Content: What about the animals, its not really right because their a lesser species that they should be tested on. Who made us the ones to decide who should experiment on these animals. Also, the anatomy of animals is far different then ours. Plus, they function differently, who are we to know if the experiment were to work.

Title: Animal experimetation should be banned around the world Content: I am sure that animal testing should be banned around the world, because of the fact it is cruel oward animals. We may use them like a meal, but for the name of medicine we can not do tests on animals. I mean they have a chance to live. Thus, other arguments I will tell if you start to debate with me!!!

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: Should people that are sentenced to execution be tested on for medical purposes instead of animals Content: I Believe it is wrong to test on animals as they are defenceless creatures that have no say in the matter. However testing and Criminals such as: Murderers, Rapists, Paedophiles and Treason that would be better as 1) they will be killed anyway and 2) they maybe able to help themselves possible get off Death Row by helping

Title: Testing on Animals Content: So many animals are killed because of products being tested on animals. I believe the only reason we do it is because they are like us, but helpless and can't stop you from testing products on them. Taking innocent animals, making them go through pain and suffering, and then killing them is not a humane way to treat any living creature. They should be able to live a happy life and not one in pain and suffering that will ultimately lead to death because of a science experiment. Test it on something else; there are other ways to test if a product's safe than putting it on animal. Animals cruelty is NOT okay and should be banned. Whoever excepts my challenge: good luck.

Title: Animal testing should stop Content: My opponent puts forth some seemingly well thought out arguments, yet I will approach them one by one in this round.(1) Cruelty of Animal Testing"Animal testing is the cruel science of testing products on animal [sic] in an extremely bestial way."This is wrong for several reasons. First, there was no definition to the term bestial, nor any explanation of what would make this cruelty "extreme". Furthermore, as I looked into the topic, I found this definition of animal testing: "the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs" [1]Nowhere in the definition does it state that the testing must be cruel, nor does it state that the testing is solely for testing products, such as shampoo, lotion, etc... It simply state that animal testing is is the use of non-human animals in research. (2) Different Anatomy"... animals have a very different bodies and anatomy than ours."Once again, this statement is wrong. The majority of animals share organ systems that mirror our internal workings. From personal experience (granted this cannot be proven, but I am willing to give a link to other related experiences), during a medical camp this summer we learned about the cardiovascular system. Yet when we did the dissections, the heart did not originate from a deceased human, but a slaughtered cow. How could this be helping our learning, or teaching us about the human anatomy, if the cow did not resemble the same systems that are seen in a human? This does not apply to cows alone. Monkeys, mice, rabbits, and many other animals (if not most) all share certain characteristics concerning bodily functions. Most animals (if not all) used in testing have a similar breathing system; these same animals all have a vascular system that transports blood throughout the body. I in no way see how these test animals have very different bodies or anatomy.Furthermore, the chocolate argument is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion. This is one example of something that harms animals (a select few) and not humans. Not relevant to the testing of animals. (3) Unreliable Tests"Another reason is that animal testing is unreliable."First, even if the BOP is split, Pro has failed to prove his side, instead simply stated some statistics that may or may not be true.Second, I would like to contend that this unreliability is not based in truth. There isn't really anything to back up this claim except for that statement alone, given by Pro. I would argue that this testing is in fact reliable. Pro also states that "92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials." This may be true, but one must look at another aspect of this. One must understand that even though these tests may fail, there are two points that show this is a good thing. First, animal testing prevents an outstanding amount of dangerous tests to making it to human trials. Second, there are a good majority of drugs that don't even make it to pre-clinical trials due to extensive non-animal testing. [3]Now I will address a few of my arguments in favor of animal testing.(1) Past Success in TestingI would like to open by saying that animal testing has been the basis of countless discoveries in the medical field. This can be seen in a number of vaccine discoveries, such as penicillin research (conducted by Chain and Florey), Tuberculosis research (conducted by Koch), advances in asthma research (conducted by Dale and Loewi), and many others. [4] With these few examples, it can be seen that, in an effort to better humanity and protect us from deadly diseases, animal research has been a great help.(2) RegulationsThere are already regulations in place protecting animals (for the most part). I will address these exceptions in my next argument. Going back to the regulations, however, it becomes known that these animals being used in testing are protected to maintain ethical treatment. In the UK, greater-apes are protected from testing. [5](3) Selective BreedingThe only animals not protected by these regulations stated in argument 2 would be mice, rats, and birds. However, while they are not protected (and sometimes not recorded due to millions of tests), these animals are bred for testing. They are not inhumanely taken from the wild to be tested on. There was never a chance for these animals to "go back to normal life" or other arguments posted by many anti-animal testing advocates, but instead only a life of testing. This selective breeding goes quite quickly, and allows scientists to choose certain traits across several generations. Ultimately, while individuals argue that this breeding solely for testing is inhumane, it is for the benefit of society. Though it is only my opinion, I would much rather have mice be subjected to testing that could ultimately end their lives than allow certain diseases to tear through the human race and cause devastation due to a lack of testing.Sources:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://speakingofresearch.com...[3] http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...[4] http://speakingofresearch.com...[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Title: animal testing should be banned Content: Since my opponent had forfeited this round again, I will just state my opinion and extend my argument.My Opinion As I have stated, animal testing should not be banned. Animal testing may save the lives of living things, and it will develop medical treatments and science. Also, animals will get to benefit from animal testing since animals get better medical treatments, and those things could even save their lives. Also, the environment of animal testing is not harsh since it is highly regulated. Also, even though we do not do animal testing, there is no another thing to replace the animals for the experiments. It is because the body structure of humans are highly complex, and the animals are very similar to the humans.Questions to my opponentPlease clarify your reasons, and answer my questions I wrote in round 2. To conclude, for these reasons I disagree to the topic that animal testing should be banned.To add, I will extend my arguments I wrote before since my opponent forfeited this round!

Title: Animal testing is morally acceptable. Content: The topic for discussion is that animal testing is morally acceptable. I will be taking the 'con/against' position of the topic. I welcome anybody who wishes to debate the issue with me. I'm a beginner, however I love a challenge. The opposition may begin the debate :)

Title: Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found. Content: Thank you, Beginner.Apologies to my opponent. It seems the first four sources in my first constructive case do not link to relevant source info. I will reiterate them here:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.neavs.org... [3] http://www.buav.org...[4] http://brandongaille.com... If the sources say that the page can't be found, just refresh them. Now, onto the debate.==Clarifications==Again, I apologize to my opponent. That very sentence (as well as the other) was a result of copying my arguments from a similar debate I had participated in. Voters, deduct conduct points from me if you wish.However, I blatantly disagree with his second premise. The fact that we are determining just one alternative does not mean we are making that one a replacement, we are making that a prioritized alternative. We can still use animal testing when needed. Plus, my contentions state that those were proposed alternatives. The single alternative that is determined to be best or working will then be "found".Heck, I'd even go far as to say that it doesn't matter if we find one or many, because at least we are finding at least one alternative. If we find one alternative, why stop there? Biomedical research is broad and needs many forms of testing. Moreover, you cannot find multiple alternatives without finding at least one in the first place, so literally it goes both ways. Obviously we both agree that animal testing is irreplaceable. But that isn't the point. What we should be arguing about is whether or not we should find an alternative(s) and whether we can alternate from each of the testing methods. That's exactly what the resolution calls for. This should easily address my opponent's arguments that say and are affected by the statement that animal testing is irreplaceable.Although my constructive round was thus somewhat off-topic, the rest of my arguments aren't at all taken down just yet. The only part that was of-topic was two little sentences - that don't contribute to my case in any way, but instead just to place the conclusion for an argument.Also, my opponent is incorrect in stating that I am playing semantics. If the word that the semantics is based on has already been clarified and agreed on, it isn't playing semantics regardless of whether my opponent is misunderstanding the definitions I set, which he is.==Counter-rebuttal 1: Mistreatment of tested animals==Literally what my opponent is trying to do is tell us that animal tests are conducted with the highest possible amount of care and minimize discomfort or mistreatment. That doesn't mean the animals aren't still being mistreated. Minimizing discomfort or mistreatment could still be mistreating the animals, because we don't know *what* absolute that testers are trying to "minimize" it to.In fact, my opponent fails to state examples for how they aren't mistreated. I will state examples here as to how they are mistreated [5]: "This is life for an animal in a laboratory. It is deprivation, isolation, and misery. On top of the deprivation, there are the experiments. U.S. law allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, drowned, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited – and pain-killers are not required. Even when alternatives to the use of animals are available, the law does not require that they be used—and often they aren’t." - Peta [5] Such immoral actions only affirm that there should be an alternative. The last sentence in this quote will address part of my opponent's contention - often alternatives aren't used regardless of availability.==Counter-rebuttal 2: Animal testing is unreliable==Again, in my last round, the alternatives I had proposed were shown to be much more reliable than animal testing. Obviously every type of test is going to be trial and error, but if we want to succeed in biomedical research, we need to both fail in some cases AND get to the answer more quickly.This argument, however, was not addressed in any sense, but rather dropped. Extend this line of argument.==Counter-rebuttal 3: The cost of animal testing==My adversary starts off this rebuttal by stating that my contention is reliant on the last contention. This is true, but isn't entirely true. This rebuttal could go on just with the 16 billion dollars used on animal testing.Even if it were entirely reliable, my opponent's rebuttal to this isn't valid. If only a small percentage of animal testing succeeds, then obviously it should only be worth the same percentage of that 16 billion dollars that have been used.==Counter-counter-rebuttal=="No. Humans are animals, and all arguments that can be made against animal testing, such as pain, suffering, etc. can be made with human testing. In suggesting this, my opponent presents us with a massive double standard which favors animals over humans." - OpponentThis is completely false. As shown by Wikipedia, animal testing is the testing of drugs and products on non-human animals. Thus this is irrelevant."I've presented clear examples, i.e. surgical tests, that show that animal data can and has been extrapolated directly to humans." - OpponentThat makes it applicable in some cases, but not extrapolatable. Again, we can only try it out, but we cannot predict the outcome very successfully with test information."And what alternatives are these?" - OpponentI refer to my extended argument above."I refer to my refutation to my opponent's C2." - OpponentThis refutation has been addressed, both before and during this round."Humans may differ from non-human animals, but if they were so different as to be unreliable, how come we've been able to derive realresults from them?" - OpponentBecause the real results have been derived only at very rare times."In fact, petri dish cells have no internal immune system and system structure." - OpponentThat doesn't mean we can't derive better results. We only need to study possible answers if we already have a base on the chemistry of human immune systems and structure, which we do."My opponent later goes on to declare that other methods, such as petri-culture testing, is more accurate and better than animal testing. I declare this a false assertion. Even if non-animal testing methods may be more effective in some cases, not all cases can dispense with animal testing. There is no replacement that can duplicate the results of an entire living system besides another whole living system..." - OpponentI can only declare this as a false assertion if there are no sources to prove this, which I have used to prove that they are more reliable. Also, again we are not debating replacements but rather alternatives.My opponent then says non-animal tests can only show so much. That's the case for everything. Nothing can show more than just so much, especially animal testing, where the immune systems are almost completely different, as shown.""all living things are animals" - MeIn context to my rhetoric, this refers to all living things with animal functionalities and systems which are obviously animals. My opponent attempts a negation with a grammatical technicality. I refer to rule number 3." - OpponentAgain, my opponent accuses me of playing semantics. It can't be playing semantics, however, if a statement is so off as to literally be twisted in a way to unfairly help his case and imply that stem cell resarch isn't applicable, then obviously the debate needs to be placed back on track. The point of really playing semantics is trying to twist the debate so it goes off the resolution. I wasn't doing that. Thus it isn't playing semantics.==Conclusion==I have countered and refuted every single one of my opponent's arguments both for his case and against my case. The resolution is affirmed.[5] http://www.peta.org...;(I hate it when I add only one source in a round...)

Title: animal testing is wrong Content: I would like to clarify this for voters, we were not debating "Animal Testing is Wrong, but more like "We should use animal testing". My opponent was obviously against animal testing and I was fine with proving it justifiable. You have all my arguments to vote off of before and therefore an easy vote for Pro is advised. Thank you for your time. . http://www.youtube.com...

Title: Animal Testing Content: I think animal testing should stop because it harms the animals. Animals have no choice in whether they can be tested or not and in most cases they are harmed. It is bad

Title: This House Would Ban Animal Testing Content: Thank you for your good but somewhat 'short' point. In this round, I would actually like to start my argument by looking at the situation from your point of view. What you are implying is that animals shouldn't have rights and are "just animals" (in other words, you are totally denying their existing rights). Fair enough. But in that case, why should we test substances on animals and waste our money on their deaths and the deaths of the 'high and mighty humans' when 92% of animal tests fail anyway? Then that wouldn't really be "improving the lives of humans" like you so emphasised in your point. Now back to my perspective. Animals are not "just animals" and have rights by law. Yes, we kill animals for food but do we really need to kill or risk the lives lives of these animals for testing when it is clearly UNNECESSARY when we have so much more accurate and modern alternatives such as the 'In Vitro testing' that I mentioned earlier? In the previous round, I described only a few of the many modern alternatives that have been proven to be much more effective than animal testing, and I believe that they are the things that will not only protect animals but also "improve the lives of humans". Thank you and I beg you to oppose.

Title: Animal Rights. Content: Animals should not be eaten nor used for experiments. Animals should have rights just like humans.

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

Title: This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research Content: Throughout this debate, Pro has argued that animal testing is needed because it has helped humans in the past. After admitting that it is not accurate, he argued that it should continue despite the animal cruelty, which he also agreed with, as it will improve in the future, and might help more humans. What my opponent was unable to refute is that there are currently more accurate tests that do not harm animals, and as these are very accurate currently, there's no need to continue harming animals on the off chance that humans will be helped. My opponent was quick to mention that animal testing helped with polio, but there is no evidence that humane testing could not also have accomplished this. Pro failed to provide evidence for his statement that humane alternatives are more expensive than animal testing. As animal testing is not accurate, experiments have to be run multiple times, wasting money. In paragraph seven of my opponent's last round, he mentions "[animals] share almost the same human system." This is just not true, as my earlier sources have backed up. In addition, it's just common sense that if animals were that similar to humans, we would see more than an 8% accuracy rate of medical tests on animals. "Some questions can only be answered by animal research. All the technologies in the world cannot replace the immense benefit of animals in research, as the technologies themselves cannot replace the genes and other systems of the animal body." I ask the same question. If this were the case, we would see a significantly greater success rate with tests on animals, than the current one we do see, and that of alternate methods. My opponent has relied on mentioning several diseases that were researched in the past with animal testing, but I felt no need to respond to each individually, as he didn't prove they couldn't be solved with humane testing. "Pro oppose researching on animals, yet he supports a method that research on humans. How nice." As I mentioned in the last round, testing on humans is not only accurate, but very safe, as only very small doses of medication are administered, so small in-fact, that they only affect humans on a cellular level. If this sort of testing were done on animals, it might be acceptable, but it is not done, as the lives of animals are not important in animal testing. Finally, I'd just like mention the strong bias in Pro's sources. In the last round, for instance, you see that two of my opponent's three sources are from organizations that attempt to convince the public that animal testing is needed. The statements is Pro's last paragraph quoted from these sources are simply false. As I have shown in this debate, animal testing is inhumane, not accurate, and not needed. Money should be spent on further developing the already accurate humane test methods, so that we can advance medicine for humans and animals. For these reasons, please vote con. I'd like to thank my opponent for this fun debate. Good luck at college!

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.

Title: It is more humane to perform tests on animals than on humans. Content: Testing substances on humans without being aware of the potential dangers would be more unethical than testing animals. And, yet, we must perform tests on animals or on humans to advance life-saving medicines. Given a choice between testing humans and animals, it is better to choose to test animals.