CreateDebate


Debate Info

98
97
for animal testing against animal testing
Debate Score:195
Arguments:83
Total Votes:230
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 for animal testing (36)
 
 against animal testing (45)

Debate Creator

kgood14(6) pic



animal testing

Is it okay to test on animals.

for animal testing

Side Score: 98
VS.

against animal testing

Side Score: 97
5 points

yes so we know impacts before we test on humans

Side: for animal testing
5 points

animal testing is wrong....they use poor innocent animals make make-up ndd other products. i think we should protest against it because animals have feelings and families and lives too. we shouldn't try to destroy their lives because of body prducts. we dont need make up to look beautiful. it is wat matters on the inside not the outside. you dont need make up to full fill your day.

Side: against animal testing

When I'm Bar-B-Q ing and I don't have the right ingredients I'm pretty much left with testing different spices on the little critters. :)

Side: for animal testing
C0ur7neyy(13) Disputed
1 point

This isnt what we are talking about and you know it, What we are talking about is a serious problem where defensless animals are being treated horribly and having things done to them that no human would ever want done to them

So again i say why do we do it to them??

Side: against animal testing

Actually..., it's really not that big of deal. Sometimes I feel that God, or the universe, or mother nature, is experimenting on me..., us. If life was a little bit nicer to me..., us..., then maybe I would be a little more concerned about it. But until that happens, I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch ;)

Side: against animal testing
bozwallocks(44) Disputed
1 point

Do you Bar-B them while they're still alive?...............................

Side: against animal testing

No. That's just mean ;)

Side: against animal testing
Trixie(44) Disputed
1 point

What the.......

No testing animals or little critters here,even when eating the. It's double harm:Bar-B-Q-ing them AND testing them out!

Side: against animal testing

There are 7 billion people on the planet. What are we to eat? ;)

Side: against animal testing
4 points

Well, the alternative is people testing.

It depends on the reasons for the tests,

If it's to find a cure for human diseases, I'm all for it, no holds barred or whatever.

If it's for a new make up line, well, depends on the potential harm. If the worse that can happen is a small rash that'll heal with time or medicine, then go for it.

If it's something that may send and animal into deadly convulsions, well, I think there's enough make up on the shelves already.

Side: for animal testing
5 points

Looks like we both agree on this one. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Side: for animal testing

Animal is much safer for humans although not for animals, therefore, it makes more sense to test animals than humans.

Side: for animal testing
2 points

Animal testing is not actually safer for the humans. The results are fairly useless. Penicillin is poisonous to guinea pigs, and had the researchers relied on animal testing, we would not have the medicine today. Lipitor was also fatal to the animals it was tested on, but it's one of the most effective cholesterol medicines we have available. And think of thalidomide. Great in monkeys, dangerous in humans. Relying on animal testing only means that we are likely to miss out on useful drugs that do poorly in animal tests, and we are likely to release drugs that are harmful to humans.

Side: against animal testing
2 points

It should be noted that in medically related animal experimentation, it is not common for the animal testing to be useful in the end result. Physiological differences between humans, and say, cats means that a disease or a treatment will not behave the same. This is why Thalidomide was put on the market - it was safe and effective on animal test subjects, but was dangerous when used in humans. Another example is the HIV cocktail, which was completely ineffective and even fatal in animals, but very useful in humans.

As for cosmetic testing, it is pretty much never just a small rash. The Draize eye test involves immobilizing rabbits in steel cages, dripping chemicals in their eye, not allowing them to use any natural defense mechanisms to remove the chemical, such as rubbing at their eye, and watching for weeks to see how painful it is and how long till they go blind. There's the LD50 test, which means scientists force feed animals chemicals until half of the test subjects die. By that point, all of them are very very ill. And the skin tests? They shave the animal, immobilize it, and inject chemicals into the skin. It's very painful and frankly, quite useless. Consumer good testing is not required by law, and is really to cover the company in case an unintelligent human buys a bottle of drain cleaner, and thinks "Hey, I should drink this!"

Side: against animal testing
Daemon(27) Disputed
2 points

Actually, there are many other alternatives for animal testing, such as computer simulation, skin donation, and dead bodies, which works much better than animal testing and is cheaper than it(according t a recent study, 94% of tests that have passed animal testing have failed to work on humans).

Side: against animal testing
4 points

You know, I find it interesting that the bigger the creature, the more people care about it.

One time a bird hit the windshield of our car and died instantly, my sister cried. Why? How is that different than an insect hitting the windshield and dieing?

Think about it.

Side: for animal testing
3 points

Of course she cried Jake. First off it's a shock to hit a rather large animal or bird. Perhaps she was frightened by it! I don't necessarily agree that the larger the animal the more people care about it. An insect hitting a windshield is rather noiseless and unnoticeable most times. It is also an expected event, whereas a bird is not.

Side: against animal testing
4 points

I much rather test something on an animal than on a human being. If a product actually IS harmful, it'd be better for an animal to die than a human being. Also, the animals that typically get tested on are animals that have short life spans and fast reproductive cycles, such as rats, which give birth to many rats very quickly. When it comes to medicines that are meant to keep people alive for things like a heart condition, rats and other animals are bred to live shorter lives. This is because the scientists breed them to be more susceptible to the diseases they are trying to treat.

Side: for animal testing
4 points

Given the choice between your dog or your mother (or child), who would you choose? I love my cat very much, but I would kill her in an instant to save the life of a loved one. Is animal testing any different?

Side: for animal testing
4 points

Why dont we make animals humans for ONE DAY and humans animals for one day... Then "for animal testers" will change ITS mind????

Side: against animal testing
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

... you obviously have no idea how cruel animals are to one another. They are far crueler than humans are usually even physically capable of being. They eat each other alive amidst wailing and crying, like for hours, eat each other alive from the stomach up. It can take days for the animal to die whilst being gnawed upon.

Side: against animal testing
2 points

"whilst being gnawed upon"

lol nicely put

But then it makes you think. How cruel is it that I find it funny?

One could argue that we don't have need to be cruel and that is why we are not. -Because our intelligence grants us the privilege. But I don't claim to have the knowledge(thankfully) of weather I would have the heart to kill another for food etc. You could theoretically say all but are we not all different? Or is that WHY we have become this intelligent? Does being cruel or brutal stunt progress? I'm sort of rambling now..

Side: against animal testing
Kingly342(29) Disputed
1 point

You sir, made a wrong argument. Technically, we ARE animals. Just highly evolved.

Side: against animal testing

Well this is sort of a strange question. It really depends on the situation. If they're testing by sticking needles into dogs eyeballs to test for one of the rarest diseases ever known to infect dogs, that's horrible. But if they're testing for a very common disease amongst dogs by taking a blood sample. the nit's fine. You see what I'm saying?-

Side: It depends
3 points

Thousands of animals are killed each year for food. Medical research is a far more worthy death.

Side: for animal testing
1 point

But people and animals are different.

Sometime the medicine is okay to animals but it is very harmful to people.

Side: for animal testing
3 points

Each day animals are killed for food.

Rabbit Hutches | Chicken Coops | Dog Kennels

Supporting Evidence: Dog Cages (www.dogkennelsoutlet.co.uk)
Side: for animal testing
3 points

it helps scientists make a new discoveries actually in medicine. We are living in quickly development world and people are meeting new illnesses every year and sometimes preparation is not helpful. In this case scientists are researching ways to try treating illnesses as a cancer – disease before what scientists are still powerless. . Anyway I against when testing comes to beauty, trying to see if your make-up will cause an allergic reaction , I think its foolish to harm an animal for that purpose, I saw how they make testing perfume, detergent on animals; they do it without any anesthesia and animals feel a powerful pain and is horrible and shouldn't be done ever! Testing must be for a good reason like finding a cure for cancer and all kinds of different diseases or illnesses

Side: for animal testing
2 points

animal testing is fine cause if we dont test animals and further our research we will not be able to save lives of others it helps to creat new medicine to cure US humans from aids,leprosy, and more

Side: for animal testing
2 points

Everyone consider this. We love our modern life. Would we be prepared to let cancer kill all of us just to satisfy the needs of animals? Is everyone against animal testing vegan? I dont think so. We kill millons of animals year after year. But not for animal testing, but for food and fur. Anyone who is against animal testing and is not vegan is being hypocritical.

Thank you

Side: for animal testing
2 points

I completely favor animal testing , because day by day our science is progressing with leaps and bounds and for that we need a test subject that whether the medicines that we are creating are effective or not. Those who are claiming that animal testing should be banned should be kind enough to suggest other alternatives.Because if don't test on animals then who should it be ?Humans ?And if the answer is no , then should we stop testing our latest breakthroughs altogether ?

Side: for animal testing
2 points

HOW ELSE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TEST STUFF? DO WE TEST IT FLOWERS???

Side: for animal testing

Humans are by far more valuable then any animal. Testing on animals alows you to see the results without harming a human.

Side: for animal testing
1 point

If such tests aren't done on animals who else can you suggest it be performed on? Living beings are incredibly complex and therefore scientists too cant create models which are similar. The medical and scientific advances far outweighs the minor inconveniences such as cruelty towards animals. Scientific advancement ,in one way, will also help scientists to create different models on which such testing can be done therefore its for their betterment too. It also should be said that there are more test subjects and controlled environments for experiments with animals.

Side: for animal testing

Animal testing is completely and undeniably wrong in every circumstance. I don't think I need to talk about cosmetics testing; that's just horrible. But medical testing?

a) Non-human species react differently than humans. To everything. Their reactions cannot be gauged as an accurate representation of how humans will react. This is completely unnecessary and unhelpful testing.

b) So, why test on animals? Why not humans? Is it because animals don't have the same thought process as humans? In that case, why not take human infants, or severely retarded humans? How is it different?

Side: against animal testing
LoveU(348) Disputed
1 point

It's against our moral standards to test human life retarded or not. That's why we use animals . It 's been effectively used by the scientist for the passed years . We have developed artificial ear for the human deft with the help of animal testing and animal flesh. The artificial ear today can be made by a mouse , as you see if you got a deft brother you wouldn't find ounce of guilt if that animal testing can make your brother hear. This question is actually a question of what to prioritize. Is it either human or animal? And to answer this question. it so senseless for us to use other species than our own species.

Side: for animal testing
5 points

Animals have as much right to life as human beings

When locked up they suffer tremendous stress.

Side: against animal testing
4 points

i agree that animal testing should be banned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: against animal testing
TERMINATOR(6778) Disputed
3 points

Why do you agree that animal testing should be banned? You oughtn'y just give your vote than walk off, but give us a reason behind this vote.

Side: for animal testing
4 points

first of all animal testing should be illegal because all of these animals suffer every day just so we can be "pretty" and for our house to be "clean" we kill about 200+ animals a DAY if you do that math thats a hell of a lot of animals a month better yet a year. Just think about all of the tests that are done on animals. The Draize test, studying head trauma and studying severe burns. All of these different tests require harming the animal. WE SHOULDN'T"T LET THAT HAPPEN. I understand that people would rather have animals being tested on then humans just in case the product is dangerous. Most products tested most of the time don't make it to the shelves and that IS a good thing. But all these animals had to die because of that product. They researchers could of used synthetic skin in favor of using animals. So think about it about ever minute 10+ animals have just been tortured and killed. Sad isn't it. =/

Side: against animal testing
1 point

No worries , if we let animals intercourse as many as they want then problem solved. If you know how many lives has been saved by animal testing then you would be at our side

Side: for animal testing
4 points

Animal testing is morally wrong. Plus when you test on an animal, it is more likely to go endangered. We already have over 100 endangered species. We dont need more.

Side: against animal testing
4 points

Well, but animal testing is very cruel. I mean, for example, let's took a white rat. We first pull the tail and make it paralysis. But actually, after pulling it's tail, it can't move for it's whole life like a person in a vegetative state. It is very cruel.

Side: against animal testing
4 points

I do not support animal testing mostly because of the loose restrictions on abuse. Most researchers waste animal resources to gain statistics, not necessarily results! There needs to be more focus on animal husbandry technqiues, and living conditions. Also, most of the things which work for animals, don't work with humans...

Side: against animal testing
3 points

Deaths through research are absolutely unnecessary and are morally no different from murder

Side: against animal testing
3 points

Animal testing destroy the balance of ecological.

Look, we have two sides now, one is the problem of population,like aging of population, population explosion,another is endangered animals species. If you think animal testing can protect human? no! it is contradiction.

What are the animal testing teach our dependent? Unfriendly!!indifferent!selfish!and violent!

Side: against animal testing

I'm so against animal testing that I belong (and give generously) to the Society for Little Animal Tragedies (S.P.L.A.T.) ;)

Side: against animal testing
MKIced(2510) Disputed
4 points

..... That acronym would be S.L.A.T.

There's no "P" in the title......

Maybe the Society for Poor Little Animal Tragedies.

Side: for animal testing

It should have been "prevention." Society for the Prevention of Little Animal Tragedies.

Side: for animal testing
2 points

hehe,

okay, that one was funny.

Side: against animal testing

I am absolutely against any testing on dogs and cats. There are other animals that can be used.

Side: against animal testing
2 points

lol,

okay, I tend to agree because I like dogs and cats - and turtles and tortoises as well. I don't want them tested either.

But just as a side debate, what should be the litmus test of wether an animal can be tested?

Should it go by

cuteness,

intelligence,

usefullness,

or some combination?

For me, I have a personal vendetta against spiders. I kill every one I see, no matter the situation.

It's my personal goal to eradicate the world of spiders, and if the very circle of life itself were to crumble for want of that horrid abomination, so be it. A life with spiders is not worth living!

But some people actually have them as pets...

Side: It depends
2 points

About what you said about the litmus test, see my argument on the other side. I think size matters to people.

Side: for animal testing

Sure, I know that people love the strangest creatures and keep some as pets or curiosities. I would think that at least part of the litmus test should be the question of what creature mimics man in the best way so that the test results are somewhat valid. If that animal MUST be a dog or cat then at least let it be those that would be euthanized because of overcrowding in our nations pounds. If we actually were evolved from the monkey or ape it naturally follows that we still may have some connection to them. The species can easily be replenished right from the laboratory or perhaps in the wild. I have a thorough dislike and fear of mice and rats! Are they eligible for such testing? I don't know the answer to that but I do know they were used for years. I simply think testing should be conducted so that it does the best thing for mankind.

Side: Use the animal that best mimics man
Cottonball(256) Disputed
2 points

Why just dogs and cats?

Side: It depends
2 points

I think I meant that they are the most likely to be euthanized and if they must be, use them in addition to other creatures.

Side: against animal testing
MKIced(2510) Disputed
1 point

The majority of testing is on rats and similar animals that are bred very quickly to become more susceptible to the diseases that the scientists are trying to cure. The rat is the perfect animal for this because they reproduce quickly and numerously and are cheap to care for.

Side: for animal testing
C0ur7neyy(13) Disputed
1 point

I dont think any animal should be tested on they have emotions and can feel pain too!!

Imagine your an animal in a science lab. You have have people that are bigger, scarier, more powerful than you rubbing stuff on your skin that burns and makes your insides feel as if there broiling. Then they take something and put it on your eyes suddenly your eyes start burning, you try to get it off but the big people hold down your paws, your eyes start to get narrow visioned and suddenly everythings goes black and the burning stops, you cant see because you have gone blind.

This may be nothing like they feel like because im sure it is much more graphic and horrible than that, But definetly nothing less than that.

“Animals are more than ever a test of our character, of mankind's capacity for empathy and for decent, honorable conduct and faithful stewardship. We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to total equality, but in a sense because they don't; because they all stand unequal and powerless before us unable to do anything."

So please lets stand up against Animal Testing!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: against animal testing
1 point

it is the worst thing in the world. how would you feel if people started testing on people then what would you say top that

Side: against animal testing
1 point

i agree ........................................... yeah i thought the same thing okie dokie

Side: against animal testing
1 point

Plus you dont have to use animals for testing, there are alternatives like computer programs that use Serum, DNA and other stuff to predict what the out come of the product is.

There is also something called Human Testing, but it is not on acuall humans it is on human cells, so no one is hurt and they can see how the human would react from it.

Side: against animal testing
LoveU(348) Disputed
1 point

Thanks for the idea but DNA cannot get the accurate result in terms of getting a replica of human "'being" sad to say we need to value human lives before another species.

Side: for animal testing
1 point

It is not only immoral but highly hypocritical and inaccurate.

Side: against animal testing
LoveU(348) Clarified
1 point

Immoral, Hypocritical , inaccurate for saving human lives ? That's a good reason

Side: for animal testing
1 point

Animal testing is wrong because they can't say no to it. I wouldn't want to be tested on if I was forced too.

Side: against animal testing

I am against cruelty to animals. I don't want to see animals being tested on and suffering the consequences of pain.

Side: against animal testing
Kingly342(29) Disputed
2 points

Animal testing for medicine is needed! Would want us all to die just because some hippies don't want animals dead!?

Side: for animal testing
1 point

Never harm animals!!!!! Animals never harmed us,why harm them?Animals are lives too;)

Side: against animal testing
LoveU(348) Disputed
1 point

Sure , but no more fried chicken okay ?

Side: for animal testing
0 points

People think what are you saying that animals are less important than you like think animals being used for testing mostly half of the time end up dying there using sometimes chemicals inside of dogs for you animals are not for the rights to be used for all that its just them trying illegal things on animals to give to you selfish people dogs are risking there life for you think of you being strangled or maybe you being threatened you have no way out to try and save yourself scientist need to make a machine that will test chemicals or clothing or anything don't harm our animals with you illegal or life threatening chemicals or clothing

Side: against animal testing
1 point

Sure , we can make machine in the future but for now, we'll kill animals.

Side: for animal testing