CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:80
Arguments:53
Total Votes:105
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Is animal testing right? (53)

Debate Creator

matthill2008(175) pic



Is animal testing right?

Do you think animal testing is morally correct?

Add New Argument

I think it depends on the circumstances personally. For example. Testing things such as make up and other beauty products on an animal is cruel and is abuse. Its just not needed.

But testing drugs on animals to try to find drugs that could help make medical breakthroughs such as cancer drugs is for the greater good and is OK.

Side: Only to help society

I think it depends on the 'level' of testing, so to say. Testing, as in taking a blood sample from a dog, is fine, I think. Testing, as in injecting a chemical into a cat that has a 65% chance of killing it, not right. Putting an animal in pain for testing, not right. You know?

Side: It depends
1 point

it isn't just putting an animal into pain but also the fact that these animals have nothing in common with humans and react completely different to drugs and chemicals than humans.....yes an animal having cancer is the same as a human but a cat or a dog is not going to go through chemotherapy or have the same reaction as a person.. a theory to support this is dogs will eat anything and can almost eat anything they want like garbage.. now if a human were to eat something like that the bacteria would make them sick

Side: It depends

Animal testing is not fair because they can't even read the CliffsNotes ;)

Side: they can't read CliffsNotes
1 point

http://instantrimshot.com/

50CHARSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Side: they can't read CliffsNotes
2 points

No animal testing should be stopped because its like taking a person and testing them without their concent. The animals don't get to chose if they want to be tested on or not. It is not fair to the animals that get killed when they're getting tested on.

Side: they can't read CliffsNotes
Republican2(350) Disputed
1 point

It is not at all like testing a person without their consent. Animals have no sentience. They have rudimentary thought processes and chemical responses similar to emotion, but they are nowhere near on the same level as humans. Human lives are more important.

Side: Yep
mattcooper Disputed
1 point

You shallow minded piece of sh*t. How can you possibly deem our lives more important that another living, concious being?

Side: Yep
2 points

Well I think it is right aswell as wrong. It does not matter on the circumstances nor the level of testing : Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases as such ; measles or rabies. Drugs to fight off HIV and cancer rely on animal tests . But on the other hand there is an alternative as scientists have discovered that if you take a sample tissue from a human and test it on drugs in a test tube plus there are now computer programmes and models. But why test on animals when their life is just as important as ours. But the worst of it all is that it is Legal.

Side: Yep
Republican2(350) Disputed
1 point

First of all, testing on human tissue samples and computer models are only accurate to a certain degree. animal testing is far more reliable. And "their life is just as important as ours"??? What kind of a world are we living in where people put sentient human life on the same level as an animal?

Side: Yep
2 points

I think animal testing is ridiculously flawed and retarded. Mainly because by testing something on an animal is probably always going to give a different result because the actual product is meant for a HUMAN. I mean, seriously, if they want to test stuff, they can post ads for human test subjects and cough up some dough. And make sure they have a really long contract before any testing begins. I totally despise how humans abuse their sense of power and degrade everything else in existence.

Side: Yep

Wow.... we agree! This is a momentous occasion. Celebration time!

Side: Absolutely not
Republican2(350) Disputed
1 point

Evidently you don't understand animal testing very well. Most of the preliminary testing for drugs used on humans are tested on chimpanzees (which are genetically 98% the same as humans). The difference (if any does exist) is negligible. Any issues that do arise are easily resolved after the preliminary tests.

Side: Yep
ellieholz(1) Disputed
0 points

Actually 0.05% of animal testing are on chimpanzees, next time brush up on your facts

Side: Yep
2 points

For the most part, no.

We don't need makeup, or cleaning products. Animal testing should not be used in the creation of, pun intended, creature comforts.

Side: It depends
1 point

i dont think animal testing is righte if it is gettin tested for make up but if it is getting tested for medicines its OK ..x

Side: It depends

Absolutely not. Non-human testing is barbaric, unnecessary, and leads to no conclusive results. There are many, many other options; torturing humans or non-humans is completely unnecessary.

Supporting Evidence: USDA: Animal Welfare Information Center (awic.nal.usda.gov)
Side: Absolutely not
Republican2(350) Disputed
1 point

Barbaric is a very subjective word. as gruesome as it may seem however, "unnecessary, and leads to no conclusive results" is an incorrect statement. The preliminary testing of experimental drugs is dictated by the laws set by the FDA. And there have been conclusive results gained from animal testing that has saved millions of lives. There may be other options, but they are not nearly as accurate, and when there are human lives at steak, "partially accurate" isn't good enough.

Side: Yep
0 points

Testing on animals has absolutely no accuracy. It's that simple. When conducting a test, flip a coin over the results instead. The result of that will be slightly more accurate than testing on animals.

Side: Absolutely not
1 point

Most of the people objecting to animal testing have no idea what testing entails, or how its benefited scientific progress. How do you think they test the medicine you take? Or research cures for cancer?

Side: Yep
1 point

I think we should think that the animals have rights as well as humans so no i think we should not test anything on animals

Side: Absolutely not
bags(2) Disputed
1 point

it is not the fact that animals have the same rights as humans because they obviously do not, animals compare nothing to humans, but i will agree that animal testing is wrong because you can not get accurate results on a drug or chemical because animals are nothing like a human, a rat will not have the same reaction to benzene that a person would

Side: Absolutely not
1 point

Animal testing is one of the cruelest things humans can do. The pain and suffering they cause inocent animals is horrible.

There is no justification for this touture and it makes me sick.

http://opinion.ezwingame.com/topics/is-animal-testing-right

Side: Absolutely not
1 point

No it's not right.. and whoever thinks it is , is fucking stupid. Animal testing is cruel..

Side: Absolutely not
1 point

I think there are times when it's necessary, but it should be eliminated as much as possible.

Side: Absolutely not

Testing things that will save human lives is right. Testing things that don't is wrong.

Side: Absolutely not
1 point

it is wrong to test on animals. what we should be using is people that has been put on death row. please vote !!!!

Side: Absolutely not
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
1 point

There are only enough death row convicts to complete 1 study. Although, animal testing should be stopped when used for non-necessary purposes, i.e. cosmetics.

Side: Absolutely not

It is not right. I don't like to see animal cruelty. Those animals are being made to suffer.

Side: Absolutely not
0 points

What would you rather test a product on: human beings (who you intend to sell it too, who you would not want to kill at all, and who would make it immoral to test on) or rats, etc (who reproduce quickly, live short lives, and are NOT human)?

The bottom line is that animals are bred to be tested on. When it comes to medications, scientists breed these animals to be more prone to the disease that they are trying to cure- so without testing them, they would die anyway. And as for cosmetics and such, even though I don't like them, they are typically tested on animals that can be replaced easily. But I'm not a huge fan of testing make-up on a rat anyway... :|

Side: Only to help society
-1 points

well, i think testing lethal shit on humans is even worse.

the Nazis did it. i'll admit, some great finds were founded by the Nazis, but they were based off research on humans that got many humans killed (you know, the holocaust).

We do things differently now, we test things on animals to see what can and can't kill a living being. We test make up on animals because of we tested them on humans, well, it could be quite horrible. in this case, we would have to ban make-up because it's either disfigured consenting humans or disfigured non-consenting animals. i prefer the latter. And all that other shit. there's a reason why they call it TESTING.

Side: Yep
ledhead818(637) Disputed
3 points

Just letting you know the way the Nazis justified barbaric experiments on people was by saying they were less than human. So by saying animals are less then humans therefore we can perform dangerous tests on them, you are using the EXACT same logic that they did. Every genocide and crime against humanity has been rationalized on those grounds, "They are below us." Be careful because you are treading a slippery slope.

Side: Absolutely not
bags(2) Disputed
1 point

well for starters you can not base test results of a rat and say that it would have similar effects on a person.. In no way does a rat act or resemble a human... there are other ways to test the toxicity level than using animals or humans and they are scientifically approved....besides you can not compare today's technology to what the Nazis had... we have a better opportunity to test in a safer manner than having to harm anything

Side: Yep