CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should Animal Testing be illegal in the United States of America?
Animal cruelty is illegal and what we are doing to animals in labs is no better than what people do to them outside of labs but at home where the punishment for animal cruelty is prison and a major fine! What is the difference between these two problems? Animal cruelty is animal cruelty? What side are you on??
Yes, exactly! The consenting persons for whom the product is intended!
I worked at Lily, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, located here in Indianapolis, when I was studying biology in college. I worked on lentiviral research (HIV is the most popular one, another is the maedi-visna virus). I say worked, but I really only handled materials.
Point being, there is no way in hell that I would promote initial testing on human beings, with previously untested products. That is far more unethical than using a bunch of animals. I will explain why through an example. The point itself isn't immediately relevant to animal testing, but helps explain why you shouldn't test humans first.
To continue with the above lentiviral research point, let's say you're testing a new anti-HIV vaccine and you need to know how it will impact infected or dormant lymphocites or macrophage lineages. While we have a general idea of what might happen (and I stress "might"), based on the chemistry of the vaccine, we can't be sure. It could quicken infection rates, make the proviral form of the virus more effective or potent.
We just don't know what will happen, so we don't test on humans first. And to be honest, most people don't know what the heck they'd be getting into. Without a higher education, it's very difficult for a regular Joe to know what they're getting into.
Or we can use modern technology, such as cultures of human organs, to reliably test products.
It doesn't really work that way. Depending on the product being tested, you need a sample that's alive. Taking an organ culture won't necessarily tell us how it will impact the broader living organism. And utilizing only a certain culture of organs isn't broad enough to tell us how it will impact everything else in an interconnected biological system.
Your argument makes sense. Of course new drugs are dangerous and unpredictable. What I don't understand is why a "bunch of animals" deserve to be subjected to do this, but humans don't.
The simple answer is that it's because we're researching for the benefit of humans that it doesn't make sense to use untested products on said humans. But, no one is saying that animals "deserve" to be tested on.
Let me ask you a question. How many potentially dangerous or life-threatening longitudinal research experiments would you volunteer for in the place of a pig, a non-human ape or rat? A lot? Any?
So one life can be destroyed for the benefit of another?
Would I volunteer for experiments... I doubt it, unless it was an experimental study for a preexisting condition. But that doesn't mean that I'd wish for a non-human to take my place.
I wonder, would it be morally absurd to test on prisoners condemned to capital punishment? I imagine it would be.
As a human, I find human life to be much more important than animal life. Sure, they're cute and cuddly and all (except for those god damn alligators) but human beings are just more important in my eyes...
Like the question. If you had only enough strength to save either your child or a person you've never met before, who do you save? At least this one deals with two humans, while the other one are just FUCKIN' ANIMALS.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The bottom line is the "just FUCKIN' ANIMALS" viewpoint.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
That's right! Animals do NOT give their consent to be imprisoned and torutured, whereas people can give their consent to testing-or not. There is NO reason to "use" animals in research labs anyway. There is TOO much evidence of it not being accurate, and in some cases having even been proven harmful and fatal to people, due to drugs being approved for human use based on animal studies, who respond TOTALLY differently to things physiologically than the human body does!
You're saying if an alien race thousands of years ahead of us technology wise came to earth to probe you, perhaps kill you, you'd be okay with that because you were the inferior specie and that was your price to pay?
i totally agree with you why should little harmless animals be treated on harming them not only physicially but mentally as aniamls have feeling aswell as humans :O
hi pelhum! i think animal crulety is wrong, but in testing it to see if it will be safe for humans is in my opinion, better then testing it on humans. i mean i'd rather have a animal get hurt then a human, but thats my opinion.
Why is it OK to hurt an animal who, btw, did NOT give their consent to have tests done on him/her? We wouldn't test on a person who couldn't speak a human language without their consent, and animals are alive, conscious beings with rights, too. Essentially we're all one species; we all just look different and speak different languages and have different capabilites is all. But even so, intelligence or lack thereof, has NOTHING to do with one's ablilty/capacity to feel PAIN and SUFFER, and to have a desire to be free of imprisonment, abuse and exploitation, and to not grant non-human beings this same right just because maybe they are not "our own kind" is being speciest, which is PREJUDICE just the same as racism and sexism!
hasnt anyone heard an animal in pain? dont tell me its ok ,cause its fukn not! what about putting those hard case "sickos'" from death row up on the lab slab ?Now that i wouldnt mind. i mean half the time they wait so long for d day to come they may as well contribute to something worthy before they go.testing would be far more reliable.and might i add ,if i knew i had terminal cancer or another type of incurable desease id be more than happy to offer myself as a test subject.WHATS TO LOSE. IF you think its ok then please come and live with me,l provide u a bed & water & food (maybe)and in return,i put the lotion in the bucket & you rub the lotion on the skin
In today's society we consider it bad to test on animals and I agree because what if you were the one being tested on how would you feel animals have feelings too and god did not create animals so they could be used for a inhumane process like testing of products.
I don't get the picture. Sleeping cats covered in tomato sauce? lol, cats and their ability to get into the cutest of situations.
Well, if we didn't have animal testing all human beings with diabetes would be dead...
so if you or someone you know has diabetes, be happy that animal testing is legal in the United States. But if you don't care about those with diabetes, none of this shit matters.
also, are they dogs or cats? can't really tell (which is why i don't get the picture).
i thought down voting was a way of disagreeing with the persons argument.didnt realise it was a no -no, maybe this option ought to be removed.as far as being right or wrong ,well you obviously dont know much about the harsh realities of animal testing. like i said come stay with me, i might feed you,... if you put the lotion on the skin.
As in "The argument was badly structured, therefore I will down vote you" and then followed by a response on why you down voted. If it's nothing more than opinion, it's a bad reason to down vote.
I never down vote since I don't think people are wrong for having an opinion or possibly being misinformed. I like to help people, not call them stupid.
oh ok im sorry ...i feel like an idiot.please excuse me for my manner. i understand now and will keep this in mind when forming my oppinion in the future.I will be the first one to admit i know nothing when it comes to how to debate.btw i dont think i called you stupid.
Animal testing is probably less than around 70% accurate (give or take a few).. Humans and animals have different make up's and usually you will need to test about 100 animals just to get one mild result of a human..
There are alternatives such as different materials that resemble human tissue..
The whole point is also to stop making useless $h!t we don't need.. Animals are not test subjects, we over breed them, just to kill them. Animals are the cheapest ways to test, though there are more accurate ways to test.. Most things we test don't even make it to the shelves..
Who made us god to decide that we are higher? we were once animals as well! Just because we have a higher intelligence does NOT mean that we can kill animals because we feel that they are worth less than a human life! Humans are selfish creatures and i don't understand why we think we're better, we're animals ourselves with the way we act! Yes, I'm a human too, and i agree I'm selfish too at times, but really? is it really necessary to prove we are better?
there are millions of stray animals that die of neglect in the roads daily, the animals used in animal testing have homes and are given food and water. these animals are used to benefit the lives of many suffering and who could benefit from possible cures. who is the inhumane one ? the scientists who use animals who would have died on the streets and tried to help the human race or the people trying to delude theirselves that these animals are better off getting roadkilled or spent their life starving. ( btw for the people who think about of the pain factor.... there is anastesia in labs not so much out in the wild) y dont the people whining about animal cruelty help the millions of other animals on the streets who do need their help?