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.
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.
Yes, actually, they are. Makeup, household products, very surprising things... like Arm & Hammer, Gillette, Palmolive, and many more. Check out this list and try to consume consciously. :)
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Funny! I'm 17. I'm also well-informed. Look it up!
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.
When stating an argument, it's customary for the one presenting the argument to also present evidence supporting said argument. Telling doubters to "look it up" only makes you look lazy or dishonest.
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.
No it is not that simple. you cannot dismiss an entire argument with "it's just that simple". If you're so sure of your "facts" then cite your source. no one will take you seriously if you don't give evidence.
How a drug behaves in the body is largely determined by its chemical properties, such as size, chemical constituents, and solubility. While the results of in vitro experiments on human cells are sometimes applicable to determining the expected outcomes of animal studies, there are often unexpected effects in animals, and whether these effects will be relevant to humans remains uncertain until clinical trials in human subjects have been performed.
...many drugs reveal severe toxicity in humans that was not evident in animals. There are many examples of drugs that show dramatically different effects in humans and animals.
from Enyclopaedia Britannica's Advocacy for Animals.
...most scientists have come to the conclusion that animal testing is totally inadequate for protecting humans from harmful products.
...the LD50 test (a common procedure to determine toxicity of products/drugs by administering it to a group of animals until half the group dies) was considered inadequate for assessing toxicity by a large body of the toxicology community.
There are a wide variety of in vitro or computer-based replacement alternatives for the more traditional and inhumane Draize Rabbit skin tests (another common test that involves applying potentially corrosive materials on a rabbit's skin or in her eyes, after which is a period of observation for seven days).
The European Union recently announced the formal acceptance of a cell-culture test (3T3 NRU PT) as the officially accepted standard for determining phototoxicity.
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
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.
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... :|
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.
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.
Are you saying that animals are not less than human?
the Nazis believed that anyone who was not of the Aryan race was an inferior being. They were still HUMAN though. Animals are not human, and they are beasts.
so no, i'm not using the exact same logic. appreciate the down vote though.
Fine the Nazis never said non-aryan's weren't human, but they said they were inferior beings. Which is exactly what you are doing to animals. Just because something is less complex or weaker doesn't mean it has less rights.
You just said that anything with a lesser brain structure is inferior and therefore should be tested on because the lives of superior beings are more important and you don't see how that uses the same logic the Nazi's used?
If Nazis believed that some humans had a less evolved brain than others, than the Nazis didn't understand science (which is weird, since they had brought some of the greatest innovations in science... w/e).
Humans are more important than lesser animals... right?
If you are saying that the reason it is okay to perform dangerous tests on animals is that they have inferior brains then how does this not apply to persons who are mentally retarded as well? Wouldn't a fully functional chimpanzee be more intelligent than a severely mentally retarded human? So according to you wouldn't it be better to perform the tests on the human than the chimpanzee? How can you not see the slippery slope upon which you are teetering?
well, i guess i should start by saying that Slippery Slope is a fallacy.
And the reason why it's a fallacy is because in no way do i advocate the UNWANTED testing on the retarded.
The retarded are still able to produce speech and still have an EVOLVED brain, unlike any kind of ape. They are still HUMAN. As humans, we view other humans as our own, despite their handicaps. Apes, on the other hand, are our inferior comrades.
For that, it's okay to test on them. It's GOOD for the progression and maintaining of the human race and beneficial for us as individuals.
The idea that animals are somehow the same as us is a dangerous thought. And to use your slippery slope argument, i guess it's okay to fuck animals as well.
No I am talking about someone very severely mentally retarded who cannot talk or do anything. A person with no brain function would apply as well. A monkey would be more intelligent than both of them.
You are kind of dodging answering my question. Please tell me simply and concisely the justification for performing dangerous tests on animals. If you are just using the fact that their brains are simply more evolved that doesn't really make sense. The rest of humans brains may be more evolved, but a person who is severely mentally retarded does not have a brain that works.
I'm not saying humans and other animals are the same that is stupid. What I am saying is that they are similar in their capacity to suffer. We have scientifically proven that other animals can feel misery and can feel pain. Any time you force misery and pain on ANY living creature, it is just as wrong regardless of how high on the evolutionary scale they are.
Actually, someone who is as severely retarded as you pointed out would be better off euthanized. but, they are under the care of their guardian. I don't like it like that, but there are twisted fucks out there who seem to not understand the suffering of that human being.
If a guardian wishes to give it up for testing, since it is human and is part of our society, the tests must be humane. It's only natural that we should treat humans humanely.
Animals, on the other hand, have not spawned from human beings and are not evolved enough to be anything more than a beast. It's necessary that we subject them to the more inhumane testing because they are the best subjects. They're non-human, making it less harmful to our morale, and it keeps us better off while they may have to suffer. Fair trade.
And the only thing that we do know is Evolution and Survival of the Fittest. Empathy is something that's made up. Understandably, we apply it to the weaker humans for they may be useful in some other way and are necessary to fit the societal pyramid, but animals fill in the gaps of needed suffering. Which includes Animal testing.
Obviously we'll never see eye to eye on this. I feel that the needs of the humans out weigh the needs of the animals while you feel that causing pain to any living creature is immoral.
Here's the possible compromise. Try to save as many animals as you can before a pharmaceutical company gets them...
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
