At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Rule of debate: ALWAYS support you claim with evidence
Debate start in 5,4,3,2,1
Go, and state your claims everyone
I think animal testing should be legal, because animal testing helps us determine if something is safe for humans or not.
i remember doing this lesson so i'm pulling up my document's right now :)
no, it's just for fun :)
but, if the documents are textual evidence, then sure
well, let's start off with which side we are on. i think animal testing should be banned, what about you???
I think it should be legal.
now, let's support our claims with evidence
"An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC." quoted from http://animal-testing.procon.org/ If animal testing has been around for so long, why do we need to ban it now?
most animals that are being tested don't even share half the amount of our DNA, this doesn't give the best results
but it still helps us find cures for these: "Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more." quoted from http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/using-animals-testing-pros-versus-cons.html
I do see the point of your latest response though, but I am still going to stick to my claim.
Wow, that's a really good presentation :) I think this debate has a lot to do with feelings, and ethics now. The only real pets I had were pet fishes.
I can see why you think that about the claim.
i can argue for either side, but i feel more comfortable when speaking against it
I still won't give up though. According to http://animal-testing.procon.org/ "Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories."
I also think it depends what kind of person is handling the animal, because not all scientists are cruel to animals. Yes, they may experiment on the animals, but some scientists are at least a little bit humane to the animals.
maybe the public is only showing the bad sides to animal testing
It’s unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear. animals who never step foot outside are being used as rags & super heroes against their will
I also think that you were wrong about the DNA part. According to http://animal-testing.procon.org/" Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans."
also, read this: "Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments. The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals.  Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics.  The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. [112, 113] Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. [10, 11, 12, 13] Chris Abee, Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility, states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees," and says that the use of chimps is "our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States." quoted from http://animal-testing.procon.org/
also, ask yourself this, would you rather have a human be tested on and die, or a chimpanzee?
also, animals benefit from being tested on: "Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia" according to http://animal-testing.procon.org/
and not all animals are mistreated "Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment. In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size, temperature, access to clean food and water, and others), the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians.  All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and most major research institutions' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). [24, 25] All institutions receiving funding from the US Public Health Service (PHS) must comply with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals." quoted from http://animal-testing.procon.org/
I completely understand that, people's lives are so much more important than animals but is it right to imprison millions of animals so that we can have something like makeup? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzbAjTpC1EQ
but those people violated the law, and didn't follow the law
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. http://www.peta.org/blog/top-five-reasons-stop-animal-testing/
I still think we shouldn't ban animal testing
more information "Animal researchers treat animals humanely, both for the animals' sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. According to the journal Nature Genetics, because "stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results, and many phenotypes are only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect welfare issues."  At Cedars-Sinai Medical Center's animal research facility, for example, dogs are given exercise breaks twice daily, when they can socialize with their caretakers and other dogs, and a "toy rotation program" provides opportunities for play." according to http://animal-testing.procon.org/
also "Religious traditions allow for human dominion over animals. The Bible states in Genesis 1:26: "And God said... let them [human beings] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."  The BBC reports that Jewish, Christian, and Muslim teaching allows for animal experimentation as long as there is no unnecessary pain inflicted and there is a real possibility of benefit to human beings." http://animal-testing.procon.org/
the animal testing I'm supporting is for cures for illness, not cosmetics
plus,"Relatively few animals are used in research, which is a small price to pay for advancing medical progress. People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million cattle, pigs and sheep annually, yet we only use around 26 million animals for research, 95% of which are rodents, birds and fish. [1, 2, 115] We eat more than 1,800 times the number of pigs than the number used in research, and we consume more than 340 chickens for every research animal." quoted from http://animal-testing.procon.org/
what's wrong with testing on animals, if we eat them?
eating an animal isn't torturing them
but the animal is killed
next to my house, there is an oriental market that houses live fish and crabs, and then they are killed and sold fresh
i much rather be killed then poked at and pinched for the rest of my life
read this http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/slaughter/?referrer=https://www.google.com/
"Imagine being hung upside down, shocked into paralysis, having your throat cut, then drowned in hot water...while you’re conscious. That’s the stuff of nightmares, and it’s the tragic reality for billions of birds each year. These animals have virtually no protection from the worst slaughter abuses." http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/slaughter/?referrer=https://www.google.com/
not all animals are tortured for research
but know I have another debate question for tomorrow or next week
lol... ok :)
okay, who wants to continue? I can stop the debate if you want
yes! :3 I say it should be banned because it is not humane and animals deserve to live they should be treated equally as humans
I understand your thinking- I think this would help support your claim : "Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. [66, 67] As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"" quoted from http://animal-testing.procon.org/
Animal Testing should be banned
Nawh u deserve medals :) for starting this ^_^
good job everybody :)
I now stand against animal testing.
it's really good to know both sides of the argument, i think it was a good topic to go into to
Thank you :)
:) make sure to tag me in your next debate
okay, I will
it will probably be in a couple of days or in a week or so
Let me ask, what does animal testing accomplish? I personally don't believe in evolution, so don't start spewing that on me. But, yes, God gave man dominion over animals, but within the context of a good leader. Dominion should not be understood as ruling, but more or less, guidance. Animal testing could be considered as ruling, and even abuse in some cases. Though, we are not to hold an animals life to such high expectancy as a humans. Animals don't have morality, but we do, so in a moral sense, is animal testing right?