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 we experiment using animals?
Do you think that using animals to carry out drug testing and other forms of experimentation is inhumane considering that when a factor is discovered to affect animals it can also affect humans as well? Do you think that we should abolish this form of experimentation?
I think it is inhumane to the animals, but I don't have a good suggestion on how testing can be carried out otherwise to see what the effects will be on a living being.
I dont disagree with this as much as saurbabys assessment but i still think its weak, the fact is that's not how it plays out in reality, in reality there may be a multitude of others ways but they won't be used as its always easier to use animals than to use costly simulations, and other methods. Saying its necessary when you know (or should know) that it is rarely necessary means you effectively support the experimentation.
Even i admit in exceptional circumstances it would be justified to experiment on animals but in reality they experiment anytime they want, and much of the experimentation is completeyl unrelated to human health products.
Why did you dispute what I'm saying then? Geesh Gary! I have the same opinion... I NEVER said there wasn't other ways... I said that whenever there is we should go that route.
Ya but you gave me the impression that you're using that excuse to condone animal testing, the fact osn most of the experimentation can be done without the need to harm animals.
Yes i know, my point was that i think your using that as way to rationalise and justify animal testing (you know like you do with the brutal actions of your government) in its current form which from my understanding is unnecessarily brutal, even in western countries.
I was very clear Gary! I am an animal lover... if there is a way to do it without using animals then we should. PERIOD!
And I can't believe you have found a way to bring your hatred of the west into this again... you're part of the west! Get over it! China does many of the same things that you hate the west for but I never here you crying about that?
Thats because China aren't trying to convince the world that their motives are altruistic. There not hypocrites, they make no bones about their actions.
Anyway the reason i disagreed in the first place was i dont think youactually realise that there are other ways besides animal testing, there just not used most of the time as its easier to test animals, therefore by saying
"If there's another way to do it we should every time... but if not then unfortunately it's necessary."
you are providing tacit support for the current state of animal testing testing. Thats what i disagree with.
Okay... so it's okay for China because they're not trying to convince the world that their motives are altruistic. That's a bullshit answer to say the least. Their civil rights violation in their own country are outrageous and they're always trying to claim otherwise.... hypocrites! But we know you don't care about that stuff since you've as much as said so about Iran's civil right violations.
As for the animal testing.... just how thick headed are you? How many different ways do I have to say it? Seriously! I know there are ways around it Gary... I NEVER said there weren't! I live in Cincinnati, the world headquarters for the Proctor & Gamble Company. Both of my parents worked for P&G;their entire lives! Don't tell me I don't know any fucking thing about animal testing.
Ok, first of all i know China's record is abominable, i know how bad it is, the fact is though China's record for invading other countries and installing brutal dictators is pretty non-existent. Their involment in foreign wars is fairly non-existent, i mean im not saying they weren't involved in foreign wars but most of them weren't imperialistic or premeditated or pre-emptive, again there are exceptions i.e. Tibet. Thats the reason i dont come here and speak out against china, maybe if a chinese person was on this site and he was talking about how great the people'e republic of China is, then i probably would. Yes there human right recod is terrible but just but every recognises that fact, they don't have the wool pulled over so many people eyes like your government does.
"Their civil rights violation in their own country are outrageous and they're always trying to claim otherwise"
Well of course their government spokesmen dont hold their hands up and say ya we killed 1000 villagers this week, but the piont is its no secret.
"But we know you don't care about that stuff since you've as much as said so about Iran's civil right violations"
I never said any such thing, in fact i said the opposite, and i find that accusation quite offending.
"Don't tell me I don't know any fucking thing about animal testing."
Again i never said you didnt know anything about animal testing, i said you gave it your tacit support by saying its 100% necessary as it is currently is, this i disagree with, the fact is animal testing could be greatly reduced, the reason it isn't is because its cheap, easy and convenient. Thats why i dont agree with it, i acknowledge it is necessary under certain circumstances but i dont give the green light to animal testing practices as they currently are. You clearly do, thats what we've been disagreeing on from the beginning.
Well, I think your argument that you don't talk about China because there aren't any Chinese on this site is lame but I'm glad to hear that you don't think they're perfect.
I give up on the animal testing thing with you... you don't seem to understand my point of view at all which amazes me because it's exactly the same as YOURS!!! I guess you just have to disagree with me for the sake of doing... that's cool.
Honestly i have no idea why you think i like the Chinese goervnment or the Iranian regime, i suppose your probably programmed by your media to think that anyone who disagrees with american foreign policy is a communist or a terrorist. I despise all forms of totalatarianiam, the difference is i acknowledge when some are worse than others i.e. Suadia arabia vs. Iran. I also despise imperialism, and Americas track record is far worse than Chinas, thats a fact.
Your right we do hold the same view on the animal testing but the difference is it leads each of us to different conclusions, you use it as a excuse to justify the current state of animal testing i.e. you think that it is actually only used when absolutely necessary. I dont think it is, i dont any effort os made to reduced the frequency of testing or make it less stressful for the animals involved.
I'm sorry i gave you the impression i was putting words in your mouth by selectively quoting from what you said. Here's exactly what you wrote:
"If there's another way to do it we should every time... but if not then unfortunately it's necessary"
Now, this to me says, i dont really like animal testing but i think in certain situations its necessary (which i kind of agree with), but i dont think you'll be marching in any anti-animal tesing rallies anytime soon. Basically what your saying is you dont oppose it cause you think all those giant corporations are all animal lovers and only harm animals when there is absolutely no other chioce (im being sarcastic). I know you dont actually beleive that but by saying its necessary under certain circumstances you are tacitly providing support for it under all current circumstances (can you not see that?). If someone asked me am i in favour of animal testing i would say no!!!!!!!, not until its regulations are amended to ensure the least amount of animal suffering goes on. Thats means no matter what the situation, no matter how much money a company will save by painfully slaughtering a few thousands rabbits, if theres another option they are legally obliged to take it. Thenn i will provide my tacit support for it as you have.
"If there's another way to do it we should every time... but if not then unfortunately it's necessary"
I know what I fucking said Gary! No where in that sentence does it say I'm okay with the current situation... no where in that sentence does it say that I believe there is no other way!
You have a reading comprehension problem. Now, I'm not even reading the rest of your crap because I'm sick of it! You're an idiot! I've said that I agree with you but you're to stupid to understand it.
Let's put it this way, if one of the ways in getting around animal testing would include doing the testing on you, then I'd be all for that.
What im basically telling you is that your rationalising the problem, your not admitting there is a problem that needs rectifying. You can say oh no i really wish there was another way but what you are doing is giving the green light for animals testing, then when someone asks you are you for it you can oh no definitely not.
"You have a reading comprehension problem"
No my friend you just can't accept that ive pionted out a legitimate flaw in your stance on the issue, we been back and forth now for while, i understand your position perfectly (as i have from the moment i read your first comment) you're just incapable of admitting the difference (however subtle) between our two pionts of view.
It's us or them basically. I think I'd rather a few flies get killed in an experiment than humans. Their lives are short anyway, we might as well get something from that short time
I find that "us or them" argument to be very weak. I think that what is done to animals is not condonable, and that any attempt to do so is either born out of ignorance or sociopathic tendencies. I think with you its probably the former (i hope) as you seem like a genuinely nice person.
I don't beleive thousands and thousands of animals should have to suffer and die, to ensure some cosmetic product gets produced :
I totally agree that nothing should die for the sake of cosmetics, that's stupid. I'm speaking about science, such as medicine. We need animals to help find cures and vaccines. Otherwise I'm very against animal testing.
Well thats a bit different from your first comment which basically stated that animals should be used for our own ends whenever necessary.
Animal testin regulations are very weak (even in western countries), the attitude towards testing is lackadaisical at best, companies use it freely. The fact is most of the research could be done without killing and torturing animals. Its just easier to test it on animal most of the time. Let me make myself clear, i think in certain circumstances it is justified but not the way its carried out currently.Your argument suggested to me that you support animal testin in its current form, that i disagree with(and i think you would to if you looked into exactly how and when it is carried out, thats why i suggested you may be ignorant of it).
I didn't mean that. I didn't even think of cosmetic uses to be honest. I just think about using them for medical purposes, in that sense I think we should use them for our own ends, until something better comes along. It won't end because there will always be diseases and such that we need to find cures to. So animals that are plentiful will be used.
I think that a large proportion of the testing of animals is wholly unnecessary. What i mean is; you are providing support for animal testing based on the belief that is must be done in order to synthesise new medicines, this only serves to perpetuate the current state of animal testing, which in my opinion is unnecessary in many instances.
Because it doesn't save us, it saves multi national corporations millions and millions of dollars. The fact is much of the testing of animals could be replaced with other methods that are just as accurate. I agree that animal testing should not be removed completely, living systems sometimes need to be perturbed in testing, in order to see how they react, most simulation methods cannot replicate results such as these. I acknowledge that this is necessary but only when the result being generated are put to good use in developing medicines, or research on curing diseaes. The fact is though that most of time although other methods may be availible they wont be used(this is true even in medical research), animals are deemed to be a cheap commodity that can be used and abused as required.
Also, much of the testing is done for products that will never be used to save lives or make life any bit easier for anyone unless you consider a new facial cream for women,or a new kind of perfume or new shampoo to be a great contribution to the existing body of medical research. Its all about profit and the markets stems from the desire by the general public to artificially enhance their image.
Animals are treated very badly and much of it is unnecessary.If the regulations were made sufficiently stringent then i would be in favour of testing until then i am deeply opposed to it, well alot of it, ,as i say said some of it is necessary.
Thats exactly what i said, igo back and re-read what i wrote. Im well aware of the limitations imposed by artificial simulations but they could be used a hell of a lot more than they are currently. Also, i am quite ambivalent when it comes to the right we have to kill and mame animals to ensure our own survival, again i support it when its absolutely necesasry (just about) but like everything else its completely corrupt, it seems like the human species doesn't deserve saving.
I like experimenting with my wife. I give her a few drinks that I've never tried and see how they affect her and then we try a few different positions I've never tried and then...., wait...., are we talking the same thing ;)
It is hard to say no because how do we actually know if that medicine is proved worthy. But this feels like to me giving up your own daughter to scientists so they can experiment on her. And that is just wrong in my opinion. I don't have children by the way. Treat others like how you want to be treated. Do you want to be in the animal's position and possible die? I don't want to.
Most treament of animals is cruel and inhuman, the reason it is allowed to happen is implicit in the word inhumane. I dont agree with any forms of animal experimentation, especially the epidemiological studies where animals are subjected to the cruelist treatment imaginable. This is because i empathise with the pain they feel, mammals such are hamsters and rabits are complex lifeforms who feel the same pain we do, they are also emotionally conscious. If they are treated badly they never recover, even if they recover their health fully.
There are better choices (for medical testing anyway). POWs or life-term prisoners might prove useful in this. Especially since human anatomy will yield much more accurate results.
According to scientists, the lifespan of animals is shorter than that of humans. According to them, testing on humans will take anywhere from 40 to 100 years to find out the results but testing on animals can take less than a year or so to find out the results and can help to prevent further deaths in the human population. Therefore, according to scientists, it is not about which group is liable for testing but which group produces instant results that can help to save the lives of the human population considering that what affect animals can also affect us. Furthermore, we still use animals for the purpose of hunting, food or other forms of uses to satisfy our needs.
