query: Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

positive: Monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law Amina Amjed The Case for Animal Rights Round 1 1.The use of animal for science, for commercial purposes, for agriculture purposes and for the purposes of sport hunting and trapping should be abolished. 2.We should regard animals just as we regard those who are unable to defend and protect themselves such as children, the disabled and the elderly. 3.The abuse of animals for science, for sports, for agriculture and for any other human entertainment or attainment of needs for humans is fundamentally wrong. 4.We, as humans, must stop treating animals as things and treating them as beings that are capable of feeling pain and suffering. 5.It is true, that the process of change regarding animals and the rights of animals is complicated and requires extensive amount of time and finance to bring about this change but even so it is much needed. 6.The idea of animal rights has reason if not just emotion. 7.We have a direct duty to ensure safety of animals from brutality, as we do to our children and to those humans around us who are incapable of helping themselves. 8.We should not overlook animals because they do not have the characteristics and components of a human being. 9.Using animals for scientific experiments and/or for sports" purposes is brutal and against morality. 10.Pain is pain wherever it occurs. 11.Some would try to justify the use, therefore abuse, of animals by referring to what is known as contractarianism. 12.Contractariansim is the belief, by some, that morality consists of a set of rules that individuals abide to voluntarily just as we do when we agree to a contract. 13.Animals cannot volunteer or provide consent to be or not be a part of a contract therefore they cannot be moral and not considered persons. 14.However, this is true for children as well. Children cannot consent to a contract without the permission and supervision of their parent and/or guardian. Just so, animals should be protected by their guardian(s), if one is present, with the same moral perspective as another human. 15.Theories such as the cruelty-kindness view and utilitarianism have been presented to justify the protection of animals but have not proved to be entirely effective. 16.Each view is flawed is some way to segregate animal and the rights that should be given to them. 17.By taking the inherent value approach, it is evidently clear that each individual is as valuable as the next and not just what that individual can do for others. Your value as an individual would not be regarded by what you can do for me and in return what I can do for you. 18.In that same respect, an animal is considered an individual who should be treated with the same rights as me and you regardless of what they can do for us. 19.We should not use and/or abuse animals just because by doing so, it provides for the good of others. By hurting or undermining one individual we inherently subject ourselves to condone acts of cruelty. 20.The rights view of moral theory rationally explains the domain of human morality. 21.It is true, that animals lack many attributes of a human such as reading, writing, building book cases or baking a cake. 22.However, it is also true that there are some humans who are incapable of doing some of the things that I mentioned above but we do not devalue them as an individual or say that they are not human. 23.As an individual, be it a human or a monkey, we feel things, want things, have certain expectations, we feel pain and excitement, we feel frustration and we also suffer from untimely death. 24.All who have inherent value have it equally regardless of them being human animals or not. 25.The fight for animal rights is analogous to that of equality for women and other minorities. 26.In regards to animals that are used in the field of science, there is proof of devaluing these animals by testing on them routinely as if their value is reducible by their usefulness to others. These animals are treated without any respect and in doing so the rights of animals are violated. 27.In the same sense, farm animals are kept in stressful close confinements or in isolation which causes them pain and suffering. This treatment, rather mistreatment of farm animals is rooted in the view which lacks the acknowledgement of animals as individuals with independent value. Instead they are viewed as resource for "humans". 28.Killing one human for selfish means does not satisfy our moral values than why should that be true of killing or torturing animals. 29.A right, properly comprehended, is a claim that one party may exercise against another. The victim of this claim can potentially be a person, a community, or even all human kind. 30.It should than be understood that rights in general are in every case claims or potential claims within a community or moral agents. 31.Rights can be defended or claimed by those beings that can make moral claims against one another. 32.Human can make these moral choices whereas animals cannot. Animals are not beings that are capable of practicing or responding to moral claims. 33.But rights cannot simply depend on the presence of moral capacity. If that were true then we would have to agree that humans who are brain damaged or comatose lack the ability to respond to or exercise moral claims therefore they have no rights. 34.Non-human mammals have the same fundamental rights as a normal mammal to not be harmed or killed. 35.Those that have a subject of life, like normal mammals and non-human mammals, have inherent value. 36.Animals have the ability to feel pain, satisfaction, need, pleasure, disease and death, just as any human being does. 37.Therefore, I argue, that animals, such as monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law. 38.Rights of animals should be respected. 39.The use of animals in science; commercial animal agriculture; commercial and sport hunting and trapping should be indefinitely terminated.

positive: Medical testing on animals does more good than harm. Hello GeorgiaAshely. Nice to meet you. First of all, I believe there is a misunderstanding on the topic. The Instigator seems to believe that the topic is discussing whether we should use medical means to carry out experiments to treat animals. But the term "medical testing on animals" is generally accepted as, testing newly made medical substances to assure quality or safety of the medicines before they are sold. Now, I would like to begin developing on my newly suggested and rather accurate definition of the topic. INTRODUCTION On this round, I will introduce a point regarding animal rights and the purpose of carrying out experiments on animals (having their rights completely forsaken) when there are alternatives. On my second round, I will show what medical testing on animals in laboratories really is like, realistically and is often abused. On the third round, I will dig deeper into the topic. I will identify the clashes of the debate, analyze each clash into deeper level and finally, show how my points outweigh the Instigator"s. ARGUMENTATION There are things called animal rights. Animals are entitled of life just like we are. We do not have rights to exploit animal species just for our own benefit. When medical experiments are carried out to animals, usually sample animals are injected of medicine samples which has unknown effect. The medicine might as well have fatal side-effects. The medicine might as well be poisonous. Testing unknown substances on innocent animal is immoral, evil and hypocritical in a society that emphasizes importance of life. We should not consider animal testing similar with butchery. Those animals that are butchered for meat in fact lead a satisfying life in an idealistic environment. They are well fed and are provided of safe and proper shelter. Some ranches even turn on classical music for cows to decrease their stress. As animals, they need not to worry about their safety and food which is the biggest problem that animal species face. When those animals mature after living an idealistic life, they are killed in a way that inflicts minimum pain as possible. These days, animals are electrified with electricity at about 300~500V. This inflicts minimal pain and takes the life at a split second. These animals are born to be eaten anyways. They live a worriless life until their fast and unexpected death. Act of butchery cannot possibly be compared with animal testing. Sample animals suffer excruciating pain until they die off and are incinerated. If there was no alternative, everyone would have admitted that animal testing is a necessary devil. However, it is absolutely untrue. Alternatives for animal testing exist and still are being developed. There are cases where cultured cells were used to carry out experiments. There were successful experiments that used human skin sample to perform safety assurance experiment for cosmetics, for skin corrosion and irritation (MatTek's in vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent). Pharmaceutical product experiments can also be done on donated human blood, on testing its effects and interaction with immune system cells. This is the source where I am coming from. . "Pioneering contract research laboratory CeeTox uses human cell-based in vitro (test tube) toxicity screening to test drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products. These humane tests replace cruel tests that involve pumping substances into animals' stomachs and lungs and dripping chemicals into animals' eyes or onto their raw, shaved skin. In a landmark 2007 report, the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that scientific advances can "transform toxicity testing from a system based on whole-animal testing to one founded primarily on in vitro (non-animal) methods." "Innovative biotechnology firm H"rel has developed a 3-D in vitro (test tube) human "liver" that scientists can use to study the breakdown of chemicals in the human body. This technology effectively mimics human organs and can be used to test cosmetics, drugs, and chemicals. "VaxDesign's groundbreaking Modular IMmune In vitro Construct (MIMIC) system uses human cells to create a working dime-sized human immune system for testing the safety and effectiveness of HIV/AIDS vaccines. This in vitro method is faster than animal tests, can be used to test vaccines on the immune systems of many different human populations at once, and can replace cruel, ineffective tests on animals in which monkeys are infected with HIV-like diseases and forced to endure acute weight loss, major organ failure, breathing problems, and neurological disorders before they die excruciating deaths or are killed. "Researchers with the National Cancer Institute, the U.S military, private companies, and universities across the country have shown that MatTek's in vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent is an excellent substitute for animals when it comes to conducting burn research and cosmetics testing and doing research related to radiation exposure and chemical weapons attacks, etc. "Instead of cutting into and damaging the brains of rats, cats, and monkeys, progressive researchers who are interested in studying the human brain are using advanced human-based brain-imaging and -recording techniques such as MRI, fMRI, EEG, PET, and CT. These modern techniques allow the human brain to be safely studied down to the level of a single neuron (as in the case of intracranial EEG), and researchers can even temporarily and reversibly induce brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Not only do these techniques eliminate the use of animals and the obstacle of interspecies extrapolation, they also provide rich data about the human brain that could not be ascertained through the use of animals. "Antibodies"which are used to research, diagnose, and fight diseases and have traditionally been created by injecting cancer cells into mice"can now be produced using DNA that's made in a laboratory or taken from human cells. "A research method called microdosing can provide vital information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in humans. Volunteers are given an extremely small one-time drug dose that is well below the threshold necessary for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place, and advanced imaging techniques are used to monitor how the drug is broken down in the body. "Ninety-five percent of medical schools across the U.S. have completely replaced the use of animal laboratories in medical training with sophisticated human-patient simulators, virtual-reality systems, computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience. The American Medical Student Association now states that it "strongly encourages the replacement of animal laboratories with non-animal alternatives in undergraduate medical education." Take a look at how many alternatives can be made. The same site also added that those are "just a few examples". If there is a will, there is a way. If we just try to develop and look for ways to find an alternative, we can do it and we did. SUMMARY Experimenting substance samples on animals is inhumane. It undeniably inflicts insufferable pain to animals and is very hypocritical when we value so much among our society, the morals that emphasize importance of life. Such ridiculous tradition on inflicting pain on innocent animals can even be abolished with the help of modern science. There exists plenty alternatives. Human skin cell imitations, computer simulations, MRIs and donated human blood are just few examples of functioning alternative. When there is an alternative, there is no need to carry out animal testing that violates animal rights in the first place.

positive: Animal Testing should be allowed it is unfortunate that you have not considered the fact of breeding programs also occurring in animal testing, as proved in the 'Royal Society Publishing', written by highly qualified scientists and professors. " It is true that there are breeding programs also occurring in animal testing but is it that all the animal testing that is occurring in this world contains animal breeding programs? and is it that all the species of animals that are being tested on have led to successful results? Rats are given infected blood to see what effect it takes on them. Is it fair? (a) Is it that the Tokay gecko is bred in all the animal testing labs? Then why is there such a high demand for it? Why is it that the 'tokay" call that I used to hear every evening near my home has now ceased? (b) (a). http://t0.gstatic.com... (b). http://upload.wikimedia.org... "Also, animals that go through animal testing are not going through pain and suffering or death. " Animal testing brutality is an endless list. (c) Animals endure chemicals being dripped into their eyes, injected into their bodies, forced up their nostrils or forced down their throats. They are addicted to drugs, forced to inhale/ingest toxic substances, subjected to maternal deprivation, deafened, blinded, burned, stapled, and infected with disease viruses. These treatments are exempt from anti-cruelty statutes, and worse yet, undercover investigations have exposed violations of animal welfare policies and cases of extreme negligence at labs and universities. That is the point. Negligence. It is like who cares for a few animals? Animal testing labs that are supposed to be safe,clean,anti-cruel etc. .. have turned out to be cruelty labs where even if not desired, animals are killed because of negligence. (c). http://www.downtoearth.org... "Also, in regard to your count of tigers in the whole world, the major reason for the small population of tigers, is hunting tigers for their skin, teeth and other features. animal testing is not the reason for close extinction heading towards animals" Tigers for their skin, teeth and other features? Skin is nowhere to be found now,Pro. The bones are used. The bones for medicinal uses. Now, how did this theory come into being that tiger bones are medicinal? As I mentioned before, this is something that happens when animal testing is done but then stopped but people carry it on illegally. Tiger is just an example of what animal testing leads to. It inspires other individuals to carry these tests themselves for money. Animal testing is not the reason for close extinction of animals? How can one guarantee that when examples of tokay gecko and Giggles are prevalent? Animal testing leads to the high demand of animals. illegal poaching and large scale hunting of such animals occur because of money. Leading to extinction of such animals. How can we say that animal testing is perfectly safe and O. K in such a case? "Also, it is considered that there are alternatives than using animals for testing drugs, but if this is the truth, then why aren't any alternatives used? Why are animals considered the first option? The truth is that there are no alternatives" And from which reliable resource does such an argument come from? Of-course there are alternatives to animal testing. animals are also not the closests sample of humans. (e) Cell culture, human tissue use, Vitro modular immune. many of these are in use but this of-course are costlier than animal testing but they are used in respectable labs but as I said, not only respectable labs do these test and prefer animals for the cheapness. Animal testing is never helpful in population control. It is leading to extinction. (e). http://en.wikipedia.org... Conclusion. .. . I agree that animal testing is having benefits but why helpless animals should suffer when there are alternatives? Animal testing should be made illegal and banned and only alternatives should be used so that only respectable and safe labs funded by the government can carry these tests. This will not only ensure the welfare of animals and also help us find cures and save lives. Thank you.

positive: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. No,the debate is not only about ethics. All arguments are accepted because we want to reach a conclusion and we cannot take into consideration only the ethical side. Of course,we will talk about morality as the main reason why people oppose to animal testing is because they think that it is not right to use innocent animals to test drugs and other substances. Ok, to start with, I would like to mention what animal testing offers*: Improving the health and well-being of people. Improving the health and welfare of entertainment, recreational, sport, and service animals, and of animals used to provide therapeutic support. Improving the health, welfare and productivity of farm animals and other production animals Finding better ways to preserve, protect and manage a range of animal species (especially endangered and native animals) to maintain a balance that is ecologically stable and well adapted to the Australian environment. Developing more humane and effective pest control methods to protect endangered animals and plants from the species that threatens them and to prevent damage to the environment. Broadening the foundations of biological science,including our knowledge and understanding of life processes in all animal species. I think that we should use animals for scientific or commercial testing because: 1)Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments: The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. [1] Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. "Without animal research polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year",said Albert Sabin,developer of the Polio vaccine. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury,childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis,and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes,and anesthetics. Chris Abee,Director of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility,states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees,"and says that the use of chimps is"our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C,a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States. [2]2)There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system: Whenever possible,researchers do use non-animal models for research. Computer models, tissue and cell cultures,and a number of other non-animal related research methods are used today in biomedical research. However, animal testing remains a necessity. For example, blindness cannot be studied in bacteria and it is not possible to study the affects of high blood pressure in tissue cultures. The living system is extremely complex. The nervous system, blood and brain chemistry, gland and organ secretions, and immunological responses are all interrelated, making it impossible to explore,explain,or predict the course of diseases or the effects of possible treatments without observing and testing the entire living system of a living organism. In the meantime,scientists continue to look for ways to reduce the number of animals needed to obtain valid results,refine experimental techniques,and replace animals with other research methods whenever feasible. [1]3)Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing: The same methods that have been developed to prevent and treat diseases in human have improved thelives of countless animals. More than 80 medicines and vaccines developed for humans are now used totreat animals. Animal research has helped develop many animal vaccines to fight diseases such as rabiesand distemper in dogs and cats,feline leukemia,infectious hepatitis virus,tetanus,and has assisted in thedevelopment of treatments for heartworm. In addition,animal research has helped preserve nearly extinct species such as the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil due to new reproductive techniques being applied to endangered species[1]. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. 4)Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment: In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1965. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size,temperature,access to clean food and water,and others),the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians. All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and most major research institutions' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). All institutions receiving funding from the US Public Health Service(PHS)must comply with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. [3]Furthermore, animal researchers treat animals humanely both for the animals' sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. According to the journal Nature Genetics, because "stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results, and many phenotypes are only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect welfare issues. "[7] 5)The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing: A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. "[4]The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society,National Association for Biomedical Research,American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.6)Relatively few animals are used in research, which is a small price to pay for advancing medical progress: People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million cattle,pigs and sheep annually,yet we only use around 26 million animals for research,95% of which are rodents,birds and fish. We eat more than 1,800 times the number of pigs than the number used in research,and we consume more than 340 chickens for every research animal. [5]Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK-more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year. The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research every year[6] But why don't we use humans instead of animals? : This is something that almost of all us have questioned about. If we can use people instead of animals and have the same results why don't we try it? Some people believe that this is because we don't want to harm our species and we prefer to exploit animals as we are more powerful. But the answer is not that simple. First of all,animals have a shorter life circle than humans,so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan,or across several generations,which would be infeasible using human subjects. The more research that can be done in the shorter amount of time means that new drugs can be produced more rapidly. In addition,scientists can easily control the environment around animals(diet,temperature,lighting),which would be difficult to do with humans. Moreover,animal testing,particularly with rats and mice is very cheap in addition to testing with human beings who would probably need to be highly compensated. Finally,rats and mice breed very quickly which means that supplies can be replenished qickly. All the above contribute to a sucessful and effective research. Moreover,this claim is not right. Drugs are tested on humans,too. Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings. They cannot do that. Instead,they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people. Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous. If a drug passes the animal test it's tested on a small human group before large scale clinical trials. "(primates) are used only when no alternative approach can provide the answers to questions about such conditions as Alzheimer's, stroke, Parkinson's, spinal injury, hormone disorders and vaccines for HIV" Colin Blakemore,former CEO of the Medical Rsearch Council [6] SOURCES:*. http://www.adelaide.edu.au... [1]. http://ca-biomed.org...[2]http://www.khou.com... [3. http://www.aphis.usda.gov...[4]http://www.nature.com...[5]http://speakingofresearch.com...; [6]. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk... [7]. http://www.nature.com...

positive: drug testing on humans and animals Drug testing on humans in animals is considered inhuman or not appropriate to be done. People tend to frown upon drug testing because they are afraid of the harm it may do to the one being tested upon. drug testing is the foundation to most of our cures in this world. Many of the cures we have today is based off of drug testing. Everything we know in science comes from drug testing. The patients tested upon do not do it in vein, it is to help for the future cures for the uncured diseases.

positive: Animal testing. Since my opponent has not adequately defined the resolution, I will elaborate: my opponent must prove that it is morally permissible to perform potentially harmful scientific experiments on non-human animals of the class mammalia (since when we refer to animal testing, what we really mean is mammal testing). I must prove that it is not morally permissible. ======== Contention 1: Animals are conscious. Conscious beings have the right to life; animals are conscious, and so animals should not be experimented upon. Contention 2: Animals are capable of suffering. All mammals can feel pain, have emotions, and can suffer. It is inhumane to conduct dangerous and potentially harmful experiments on beings that are capable of suffering. ======== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://encyclopedia.farlex.com...

positive: Animal testing People would never want their own pets tested; why other animals?

positive: Eating and hunting of animals does not justify testing; equally wrong It is not a justification for animal testing that some humans eat and hunt animals. A tenant of the animal rights community is that any form of harm to animals is wrong, usually if it can be easily avoided with reasonable substitutes. It is, therefore, also not appropriate to say that "the eating and hunting of animals goes without much public outcry, so why alienate animal testing?" The truth is that the eating and hunting of animals is met by substantial protest by animal rights activists. Again, hunting and meat consumption do not provide cover for animal testing.

positive: Animal testing Responsibly ending animal testing will not impede medical advancements.

positive: Animal responses to tests can be different than human responses Marymoose. "The Case Against Animal Testing". Helium - "One of the main arguments against the use of animals in research is that animal studies can't actually confirm or refute hypotheses about human physiology or pathology. In straightforward terms, it can be argued that only research done with humans is relevant to humans."

positive: Animal Testing is essential The topic of this debate is whether animal testing is essential. I will argue that animal testing is in fact NOT essential.We can start of by putting aside all arguments concerning the testing of cosmetic products on animals, since these products are hardly 'essential' to humans. It therefore follows that the testing of such product on animals is not essential either.Animal testing also occurs in the case of medicine, where most people would perhaps view it as 'less wrong' than in the case of cosmetic. But what a lot of people don't know, is that there are alternative methods of testing medicines;1) CeeTox, which predicts the level of toxicity and the chance of success of a new drug.http://www.ceetox.com...2) Organs-on-Chips are chips that virtually reproduce a specific organ in order to predict its reactions to a certain drug.http://wyss.harvard.edu...3) Testing human blood and human cells is also a good way to predict the effects of a new drug.You can find more alternative methods here: http://www.peta.org...It is also important to note that animal testing is not always efficient; many animal-friendly drugs have turned out to be harmful to humans. That is the case for HIV, some cancers, diabetes, heart problems, and many others.

positive: The US federal Government should ban ALL testing that requires the use of animals. I would like to start my argument with a favorite quote of mine: Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. - Charles Magel Animal experimentation is less reliable, more expensive, and considerably less humane than alternative options. I'm going to avoid delving into consumer good research at this time, and focus more on medical research as that seems to be where the OP is aiming. Contention: Animal experimentation is not actually useful and is not reliable. A recent experiment involved surgically embedding coils into the heads of monkeys in order to track neural activity, but further inspection of the test revealed that the neural pathway being researched was not involved in the progression of Alzheimer"s disease (Hansen). The testing of drugs is no more accurate. The American Anti-Vivisection Society states that "nine out of ten drugs that appear promising in animal studies go on to fail in human clinical trials (AAVS " Problems With Animal Research)." A prominent example of this is thalidomide, a drug designed as a sedative and an anti-nausea medicine for pregnant women, which in animal tests had very few issues in pregnant dogs, cats, rats, monkeys, hamsters, and chickens. However, when released in the late 1950s for human use, it caused high amounts of birth defects, as well as issues in adults after prolonged use (Singer 57). Oftentimes, drug research on animals can skew in a different direction. For a remarkable number of drugs, animal tests indicate little to no benefits and the test subjects may develop significant issues. As a result, these drugs never continue on to clinical studies, or need to be pushed through to human clinical trials via back channels. Lipitor, a medicine designed to lower cholesterol, failed in animal testing but was an important medical development for humans (AAVS " Problems With Animal Research). Synthetic insulin, crucial for diabetic people, causes deformities in rabbits and mice. Morphine, used for sedation and pain management, is stimulating to mice. Penicillin, an oft-used antibiotic, is fatal to guinea pigs (Singer 57). Animal tests run on these drugs, and many more, were inaccurate, and had they been relied on, would have held up medical advancement. Contention: There are plenty of alternatives that are more reliable. Animal experimentation is not the only option, and it is not the best option. Alternative research methods have been developed and approved, and studies show that they are often more accurate, faster, and less expensive. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute use cell cultures to test chemicals for anti-cancer properties, and have been able to recreate sixty different types of tumors and cancers, including brain, lung, and reproductive cancer. Using this method, over 20,000 drugs can be tested per year (SHAC). Dr. Bjorn Ekwall developed a test using donated human tissue to test toxicity, in place of the LD50 test. Not only does this test have more accurate results at 84% compared to the LD50"s 52%, but it is able to target the toxicity on specific organs. Skin corrosivity testing has a 40% error rate when using animals, but is 100% accurate when using synthetic skins, such as EpiDerm or SkinEthic. Computer-based Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship models (QSAR) can also predict skin irritation correctly 95% of the time by comparing a new chemical to similar established chemicals using its properties (NEAVS " Alternatives In Testing). Scientists have used human cells to develop "microbrains" and bone marrow, and have been able to use egg membranes and blood samples to test drugs (Newkirk 63). The Embryonic Cell Test (EST) is often used to ensure drug safety for pregnant women, and has been named more valuable than all animal tests combined (SHAC). As Gordon Bacter, founder of the cruelty-free Pharmagene Labratories, said, "If you have information on human genes, what"s the point of going back to animals (Newkirk 68)?" Other alternative testing options include microdosing, where human volunteers are given extremely small amounts of the test drug so as to learn effects of the drug without compromising the entire human body, in vitro testing, where cells are given diseases and results are found within hours, epidemiological studies, or studying the population to learn how diseases work, and clinical studies. Clinical studies often involve people who have already contracted an illness volunteering for drug trials (NEAVS " Alternatives In Research). The studies are carefully managed and so the risk to volunteers is minimal. Another option is computer models, which were used in the development of the "AIDS Cocktail", a potent combination of drugs used to slow the progress of HIV (Newkirk 225). These programs are able to simulate anatomical functions and can collect and manage a large number of research data points (NEAVS " Alternatives In Research). Contention: Animal testing is too expensive and slow. Using animal testing, it takes five years, eight hundred animals, and four million dollars to test a single drug. Alternative methods allow, for the same cost, 350 chemicals to be tested in one week (Pacelle 342). Supporting Material: <http://www.neavs.org...;. <http://www.neavs.org...;. <http://www.shac.net...;. Cohen, Daniel. Animal Rights: A Handbook for Young Adults. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook, 1993. Print. <http://chronicle.com...;. Newkirk, Ingrid. The PETA Practical Guide to Animal Rights: Simple Acts of Kindness to Help Animals in Trouble. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2009. Print. Pacelle, Wayne. The Bond. New York: Harper Collins, 2011. Print. <http://www.aavs.org...;. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. New York: Harper Collins, 2002. Print.

positive: Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no) I have certainly learned alot and am looking forward to having a good time with this debate. Now lets just cut to the chase without any furthur delay. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My case is as represented by this syllogismP1 : Killing or toruring animals is cruel and unethical. P2 : Animals are being killed and tortured in the name of animal research. C1 : Using animals for research is cruel and unethical. P3(a) : Animal research is expensive and unreliable. P3(b) : Advancements in science and technology has brought about alternatives for the expensive,immoral and unreliable method of using animals for research animal researchC2 : Animals need no longer be used in research__________________________________________________________________________________________________And now i will be offering arguments for each of my premises. Premise 1: Animals are sentient creatures capable of feeling pain and distress it is unethical and immoral to exploit their lives for our benifits. Research on animals involves them undergoing a great deal of hardship,pain and possibly meeting their deaths in an unnatural way. Human beings consider themselves superior to animals based on the fact that we have the ability to reason and have greater intellect however, science has shown that animals can have cognitive faculties that are much superior to human beings[1]. Animals in actaulity possess abilities that are only different from that of a human They are not inferior and have only been under-rated due to humans' fixation on language and technology. Animals also show incredible social and kinaesthetic intelligence, only that, their way is quite different and divergent from ours because of which their abilities are belittled and go unacknowledged[1]. A quick read throught these two articlesArticle 1: . http://www.cracked.com...Article 2: . http://www.buzzfeed.com...is enough to realize how varied yet phenominal some of their capabilities are. Animals are intelligent in their own ways and assuming them to be inferioir to us and exploiting the fact that they are defenceless for our own gains is extremely preposterous, inhumane and egocentric. ___________________________________________________________________________________________Premise 2: Each year, more than 100 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are traumatized and killed in the United States itself in laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed. In addition to the torment of the actual experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them—they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized. The sentient thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment. [2] Despite the countless animals killed each year in laboratories worldwide, most countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures in place to protect animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from being used when a non-animal approach is readily available. In the U. S. , the most commonly used species in laboratory experiments (mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and amphibians) are specifically exempted from even the minimal protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). [2]I think this report sums up and proves beyond any rational doubts that animals are being killed and tortured in the name of animal research. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Premise 3(a,b): Gallup polls have found that more than 40 percent of U. S. adults oppose the use of animals in scientific research, and other surveys suggest that the shrinking group that does accept animal experimentation does so only because it believes it to be necessary for medical progress. The reality is that the majority of animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that animal experimentation plays in most medical advances is questionable[2]according to former National Cancer Institute Director Dr. Richard Klausner, “We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans. ” This conclusion was echoed by former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who acknowledged that experimenting on animals has been a boondoggle. “We have moved away from studying human disease in humans,” he said. “We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. … The problem is that it hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem. … We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans. ”[2][2]The data is sobering: Although at least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been successful in nonhuman primate studies, as of 2013, every one has failed to demonstrate a benefit to humans. In one case, an AIDS vaccine that was shown to be effective in monkeys failed in human clinical trials because it did not prevent people from developing AIDS, and some believe that it made them more susceptible to the disease. According to a report in the British newspaper The Independent, one conclusion from the failed study was that “testing HIV vaccines on monkeys before they are used on humans, does not in fact work. ”[2]These are not anomalies. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration has stated, “Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies. ”[2]Also the animals that are to be used for testing have to be bred and kept alive till they are needed and because of this animal research becomes very expensive. Most of the money that goes into Animal research comes from the pockets of the public with or without their knowledge. [2]Through their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of consumer products, members of the public are ultimately the ones who—knowingly or unknowingly —fund animal experimentation. [2] But luckily with the advancements in medical and scientific research, forward thinking scientists have developed more humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods and alternatives for the expensive,outdated and unreliable method of animal research. Two major alternatives in vivo-animal testing are in vitro cell culture techniques and in silico computer simulation. Other alternatives include the use of humans for skin irritancy tests and donated human blood for pyrogenicity studies. Another alternative is so-called microdosing, in which the basic behaviour of drugs is assessed using human volunteers receiving doses well below those expected to produce whole-body effects. [3]These methods have proved to be cheaper faster and more accurate than animal research_________________________________________________________________________________________________________-Rebuttals: PRO's arguments were mainly centered around mice and animal testing used in the medical field, I would like to remind PRO that mice are not the only animal species that are being used for research and animal research is used not only in the medical field but also in the cosmetics and consumer production area. This means lives are being tortured and sacrificed merely for humans to maybe look good in the next party we go. The world doesn’t need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals’ lives. Addressing to PRO's arguments about animal research finding cure for some diseases,something which offers a few advantages but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, on the whole, is still disadvantageous. Animal research may have been the cause of curing some deseases, Yes, but at what costs? Hundreds of failed experiments with probably thousands or even more animals brought to UNnatural deaths just to save a few people from dying 'Naturally-brought-deaths',How is this worth the price? .Also PRO's job is to show that animals SHOULD be used for research. And in order to fulfil his BOP he must argue for the animals as whole and all researches that involve animals. Only then will he meet his BOP. Sources: 1 : . http://phys.org...2 : . http://www.peta.org...3 : . http://en.wikipedia.org...----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------And answering to your questions,I'm neither and I believe in 'a god',if you have furthur questions like these you can just shoot me a message I'll be glad to address them. Back to you PRO!

positive: Animals should be used for Medical Research Albert Sabin who developed the polio vaccine once stated "Without Animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year." Animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough throughout the past decade. I feel compelled to affirm today"s resolution that animals should be used for medical research because animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments, animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing, and that there is no adequate alternative to testing on a living whole body system. Contention 1: Animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments. The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. Imagine how many more possible medical breakthroughs that could be discovered with animal experimentation. An example of a life saving treatment discovered from animal testing is the Polio Vaccine. The Polio Vaccine tested on animals, reduced the global amount of those with polio from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. ( animal-testing.procon.org ) Chris Abee, director of the University of Texas Anderson Cancer Centers animal research facility states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees" and says that the use of animal research is are "our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the united states. ( animal-testing.procon.org ) A poll taken in 2011 by the science journal Nature showed that nearly 90% of biomedical scientists agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. Contention 2: Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvovirus. (animal-testing.procon.org ) Isnt it reasonable to test on animals if its gonna save more animals? Without Animal testing, many species would soon become extinct. Koalas, aravaged by chlamydia are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that may stall the animals disappearance. Without animal testing, we could soon lose many species such as the Koala. Even the American Veterinary Medical Association endorses animal testing. Contention 3: Animals are appropriate research subjects due to their similarity to humans. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. Every mammal including humans have the same set of organs such as the heart, kidneys, and lungs that function in the same way as humans. Because mammals and humans are so similar, they are open to many of the same conditions and illnesses as human such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. Animals do not have moral judgment or cognitive ability that humans do and because of this every culture recorded throughout human history has treated them differently than humans. If we grant animals rights, all humans would therefore have to become vegetarians, and hunting would be illegal. Conclusion: In today"s round I have shown why Animal Experimentation is essential for progress in Medical Technology due to the fact that Animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments, Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing, and that Animals are appropriate research subjects due to their similarity to humans. For these reasons, we can clearly conclude that progress ( value) should be upheld and we should affirm the resolution that animals should be used for medical research. Clearly we must affirm today"s resolution.

positive: no You people who believe that animal testing is right, obviously dont think about how the animals feel. Animals suffer and die from this animal testing that you horrible people believe is right. Would you like to be tested? Exactly, and neither do the animals so i think you should just rest your case already because i have proved all you people wrong. I would like to point out to the person who wrote the above statement that the world we live in was created by dominating all other creatures. Animal suffering at the hands of humans is as old as the day is young. Whether or not you agree with animal testing, know that simply by being a human being (and not isolated from society living alone on subsistence hunting/farming) you are contributing to the suffering of animals. Just because it's not in front of your eyes, doesn't mean it's not there.

positive: Allows us to advance as a species Yes it may save human beings, but how important are we really to animals? technically we are animals and we should respect that. we can test new drugs on willing humans, becqause if they want a drug for them then they shouled offer it up, not a innocent animal who doesnt hae a say in it. Its like a dog would test you for a new treat, how would you feel about that? Humans are not dominant over all other species. Yes, we may have advances and more knowledge of the world but that makes us no more important.

positive: Animal Testing To address the concerns of my opponent, I have never stated that animal testing is 100 percent conclusive. In relation to human trials, animals simply provide the next best model. Physiological differences between humans and animals do create a minor disparity between results; however, animal testing delays human trials in an attempt to make the drug as safe as possible before it is administered to human patients. Once a drug has been determined to be both safe and effective for animals, it is then generally tested on a small group of people before being approved for mass distribution. This human testing is performed in compliance with many laws which ensure to protect the safety of human subjects and require the drug to be tested extensively prior to these trials to ensure its safety. In-vitro testing is one method of determining a drug's reliability but is likewise inconclusive in determining safety of a drug. Animal testing is required for FDA approval of the drug to be tested on human patients. In the case of Vioxx, which was removed from the US market in 2004, animal testing and human testing were likewise performed. The drug which was supposed to act as an anti-inflammatory had cardiovascular side effects in humans which did not appear in animal testing. Vioxx was first tested in animals and showed no evidence of cardiovascular failure. According to the VP of Clinical Research for Merck (the company who tested this drug) non-of the human trials confirmed that the drug prevented blood clotting so the company relied on animal studies in order to claim these results. The company was accused of falsifying data and using unreliable sources in order to get approval by the FDA. Generally, once human trials of the drug begin, these results become the most prominent and are relied upon to determine the drug's ultimate safety. Prior animal testing is performed only to ensure the drug as much as possible before commencing human trials. The Vioxx trials performed on green-monkeys were performed after human clinical trials found an increase in cardiovascular effects for patients taking the drug. It must also be noted, animal trials are more effective for certain types of modeling (ie. antibiotic modeling vs. systems modeling –particularly of the CNS but in this case of the cardiovascular system). Vioxx failed to recognize this in their studies of the cardiovascular system and used animal trials above human trials when relaying their results, an act that was highly controversial and seen by the scientific community as unethical. The study of genetics envelops many types of research. The research of homology and plasticity between genetic material of differing species is used to determine the similarity between species on different traits. One result of this type of experimentation is to determine which animal species are most closely related to humans physiology and genetically dependent on the area of research. (Mice share 99% homology of their genes with humans making them useful in studies of human diseases.) This helps determine which animal would more accurately model a human response. Deliberately produced genetic diseases in animals will have pathologies like those of human diseases and finding cures in animals helps to finding similar cures for humans (Pines, Maya, ed. "Blazing the Genetic Trail." Bethesda, MD: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 1991). In-vitro research can be performed using human DNA just as effectively as by using animal DNA. Recombination practices as well as insertion or deletion practice however, cannot be replicated in humans. These practices are integral for the study of progression of disease and effects on physiology as well as drug effects. In regards to protein homology, protein interaction is integral in many diseases and disorders. Treating these ailments is performed through methods of integration of proteins, mutation of proteins (particularly growth factors), interaction of proteins with antibiotics or other drugs, etc… Genetic studies of animals have led to advances in research on and production of drugs for obesity, heart disease, and diabetes just to name a few. Insulin for diabetes patients is the result of research with dogs, leprosy vaccines is from armadillos, treatments for Huntington's disease and polio first used research performed on primates. Vaccines such as the leukemia vaccine were also developed primarily as the result of animal testing. This research continues because of the numerous safe and effective drugs and vaccines which are developed through animal testing. Currently many new projects are taking place including research for a new TB vaccine (since TB strains are subject to resistance factors). As for cancer, clearly there has not been a "cure all" cancer drug developed from animal research. What has been developed however, are many drugs and methods for treatment of cancer. While in-vitro studies may initially show correlation between drugs and their effects on cancer, these results are not conclusive without clinical trials. Clinical trials must be performed on animals prior to trials on humans to ensure the safety of drugs. Numerous treatments are developed and tested and are never passed to human trials because they do not first pass animal trials. I propose that it is more beneficial to humans to allow these treatments to be tested on animals before they are tested on humans, simply for more evidence of their safety. As shown with Vioxx nothing is ever 100 percent certain after animal trials, but it must be recognized that animal testing provides more evidence towards the safety of these drugs. In conclusion, after analysis of the variant types of animal testing and the results it has produced and continues to produce, I suggest that the practice of performing research on animals should continue. Animal testing has been directly linked to improvements in human medicine through understanding of genetics, development of vaccines and other drugs, and further research into surgical procedures and cures for diseases. I feel that research performed on animals, is justifiable due to these contributions.

positive: Animal testing Polls show massive public support for banning animal testing for specific household products

positive: Experimenting on animals for science purposes shouldn't be banned Here are my three contentions. A. Animal testing is harmful to the subjectsB. Animals are very different from humansC. Drugs tested on animals aren't safeLet's get started! A. Animal testing is harmful to the subjectsRegardless of whether or not animal testing is effective, there is no denying that the animals involved are mistreated. How so? Well, it's estimated that more than 100 million animals are killed for testing purposes. [1] Also, many are subjected to the following methods. Forced chemical exposure in toxicity testing, which can include oral force-feeding, forced inhalation, skin or injection into the abdomen, muscle, etc. Exposure to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease at levels that cause illness, pain and distress, or death Genetic manipulation, e. g. , addition or “knocking out” of one or more genes Ear-notching and tail-clipping for identification Short periods of physical restraint for observation or examination Prolonged periods of physical restraint Food and water deprivation Surgical procedures followed by recovery Infliction of wounds, burns and other injuries to study healing Infliction of pain to study its physiology and treatment Behavioural experiments designed to cause distress, e. g. , electric shock or forced swimming Other manipulations to create “animal models” of human diseases ranging from cancer to stroke to depression Killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means [2] On top of this, I'd the animals don't die of their injuries, most of the time they'll be euthanized. [3]Many would claim that animals don't feel emotion or pain like people do, so it doesn't matter that the death toll due to animal testing is so high. That isn't exactly true either. But there is one difference between humans and animals: While most humans can communicate through words, animals are unable to do this. “The nature of pain is perhaps even more complex in animals. How pain is sensed and the physical processes behind this are remarkably similar and well conserved across mammals and humans. There are also many similarities in pain behaviours across the species, for example they may stop socialising with people and/or other animals, they may eat less, they may vocalise more and their heart rate may rise. The capacity of animals to suffer as sentient creatures is well established and enshrined in law in many countries, however we don’t understand well how they actually experience pain. ” [4]They experience pain, we know that, but they can’t communicate the exact same way we can. In that way, animals can’t consent to the experiments while people can. We can’t be sure that the animals in question are willing to the experimentation. B. Animals are very different from humansAnother common argument I see for animal testing is that animals are similar to people, so animals must be ideal test subjects. This is only somewhat true. Humans have some similarities to animals, yes, but it's the differences between humans and animals that can be problematic on both parties. In fact, even the species that most consider to be the closest to humans have major differences, making animal testing even more dangerous. "Even animals with greater similarity to humans, such as primates, have failed to predict what happens in humans. For example, monkeys treated with a therapeutic antibody (anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412) did not predict the potentially fatal immune response that was triggered in humans. The scientific community has also recently concluded that research on chimpanzees, our closest genetic relative, is unnecessary and is being phased out. " [5]There are many factors for this. I'll use the chimpanzee for an example to compare to people. People and chimpanzees have different stance, strength, genes, etc. [6] On top of that, we have varying levels/different kinds of parasites and pathogens than chimps. [7] In other words, differences between just a human and a chimpanzee can prove to be very troublesome to work with. Imagine what can happen when we take rats, mice, birds, fish, frogs, etc. into consideration. The differences between a mouse and a human can go on and on. Because of the major variations, can we really consider other species to be reliable subjects? C. Drugs tested on animals aren't always safeThis contention picks up from my last. Because of how unreliable animal test subjects are, they can provide innacurate results. For example, in the 1950s, there was a sleeping pill called thalidomide that was tested on animals prior to it’s official commercial release. Little did they know that it would cause 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities. [8] Later on, the sleeping pill was tested on pregnant animals (cats, mice, rats, etc. ) and they didn’t experience any birth defects unless it was given in dangerously high doses. [9]Here's another example to hammer in my point. "Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market. " [10]This can prove to be harmful to people, as unreliable results can seriously harm or kill people like in the examples above. In conclusion, animal testing harms animals, is ineffective, and can kill or harm people because of unreliable results. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. So long and goodnight! Citations[1]. http://www.peta.org...[2]http://www.hsi.org...[3]http://www.humanesociety.org...[4]http://www.independent.co.uk...[5]http://www.navs.org...[6]http://www.livescience.com...[7]http://www.yourwildlife.org...[8]http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk...[9]http://jpsl.org...[10]http://animal-testing.procon.org...

positive: Animal Testing I agree that animal testing has provided valuable information in finding vaccines and saving thousands of lives. However, animals should not be the cost of us trying to find cures/vaccines for HUMAN diseases. Animals were not put on this earth to be poked and prodded with needles at the sake of scientific advancements. Some are here to be companions to humans while others are to roam among the wild. "Humans are the only hunters who kill when not hungry." -Steven Spielberg. Right this very moment there are chimps being tested for HIV, but ironically enough, they can't acquire HIV. There is only one monkey who has ever died from AIDS, Jerom, and it was only because he was injected with three different strains of the virus which ultimately created a hybrid strain. Some people argue that "animals don't have feelings," but just because they can't talk to tell you that they're in pain, doesn't mean that they aren't. Animals can become happy, sad, depressed, etc. In his final months that Jerom was alive, he became severely depressed and frustrated. His "keepers" say that they would see him sobbing quietly and would even curl up in a fetal position to comfort himself. Does that sound like an animal that doesn't have feelings? Rodents are almost always the ones used in research, however, rodents are only 37% effective in determining the cause of cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans. An example would be the drug Vioxx, a drug to treat arthritis. It was found to be safe in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused around 320,000 heart attacks/strokes and about 140,000 deaths worldwide. So not only did the drug cost thousands of animal lives, but nearly a half of a million humans were impacted, and not for the better. If scientists want to find a cure/vaccine for human diseases, they should use willing HUMANS to find it, not poor helpless animals. I know animals can't talk, but I guarantee that is they could, they would be begging for freedom, pleading to be let out of the cages and released into their natural habitat. Despite what you might think, there are alternatives to animal testing. One that is catching the eyes of pharmaceutical companies is a device called "organ-on-a-chip." It's a microchip lined with human cells through which air, nutrients, blood, and infection-causing bacteria could be pumped. They are meant to mimic the function of human organs, which will be a huge scientific advancement. Not only can it eradicate animals from being tested on, but it will provide more precise and accurate information as to what happens to the human body after being injected with a potential drug. It's more accurate because it's using human cells and not animal cells. No more playing the guessing game when it comes to determining what will happen to the human body when given a drug. This alternative costs a lot less and will take a couple days to a few weeks for results, opposed to the months-years it takes for testing animals. 1. "Cruelty Free International." Cruelty Free International. Publisher. n.d. Web. 19 November. 2015. 2. Burrell, Teal. "Can We Eliminate Animals from Medical Research?" PBS. PBS, 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2016. 3. Moxley, Angela. "The End of Animal Testing." The Humane Society of the United States, 2010.

positive: Animal Testing. The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and much more. But sometimes the drugs don't work and over 100 million animals have died from failed animal testing. All I am saying is if we did not have animal testing you would be putting humans at risk of getting really sick or possibly dying from a failed drug test. http://www.peta.org...

positive: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Thanks Pro. I. Plagiarism I don't have much to add on this, 95% of my opponent's previous round was copy pasted verbatim. I don't see such as acceptable behaviour, and most higher education institutions of state that text copied verbatim should at least have it enclosed in quotation marks and large quantities of such are discredited. One amusing thing to note is none of Pro's last round was plagiarised. Whether or not that is due to being 'called out' on her first round, or a kind fulfilment of my request is a matter of speculation. I'll leave voters to decide the rest as this is now non topical. II. Burden of Proof Please note this debate affirms two things: 1. Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes 2. Animal testing for commercial purposes Remember, the burden of proof is on Pro, and she has yet to affirm the second contention, which is required for her to fulfil her burden of proof. Commercial purposes include food & cosmetics, and I made the assertion, and I maintain that these are simply not defensible. So immediately, Pro has clearly not done enough to win this debate. The defence of medical progress doesn't allow Pro to smuggle in the defence of commercial testing, even if her defence was valid and sound (and it's not). III. Animal Rights This is basically what the entire debate reduces down to. Pro has cited many reasons why the fruits of animal research has (at least pharmaceutically) benefitted us. I never denied this, the fruits of said research has positively impacted the well being of the human species. That much is obvious. That alone however does not affirm the resolution, that we SHOULD be using ANIMALS for this purpose. I have argued for a number of things so far: 1. By devaluing animal rights, we allow for the proliferation of negative rights 2. We value consent as a human right, and it is irrational to not expect this of animals 3. We have other, more ethical options, such as in vitro testing and human testing The most important one I will affirm is #1, and Pro's own sources back up my statements, with an already appalling treatment of livestock, with genocide levels of slaughters occurring on a weekly basis. This type of behaviour would not occur if we did not provide a special case for negative animal rights, when there is no rational reason to do in place of humans. Clear examples of this inconsistency are seen in laws and social acceptance regarding human cannibalism, beastiality, slavery and hunting. Pro has provided no reason why we should value Humans over animals, and I argue to do so is to commit the fallacy of special pleading. "As I've already said, we don't conduct animal testing because we want to devalue animals' rights. Conrary, the fact that we have strict laws that protect animals' well-being, the fact that we use alternative research methods whenever possible and the fact that there is no other way to protect us and animals from viruses show the oppoiste! " But there are other ways, and even if there were not, it would not make it ethical, and acceptable. Remarkably Pro follows up with the following statement: "I never said that animals should be tortured and exploited because they are not as powerful as humans, but we ,firstly, have to think about our own species. We have to find a way to face some viruses so that we'll not be extinct. " A few points: 1. The human species has existed for tens of thousands of years, and has yet to go extinct 2. No reasoning was provided to prioritise 'thinking of our own species', moreover why is human extinction such a bad thing? It just begs the question and assumes humans are intrinsically valuable. I argue that affirming such is absurd. Pro also appeals to the fact that animals kill each other, and would be brutal in our own shoes. My response is, so what? This is known as a "tu torque fallacy", and is irrelevant to this debate. Just because they would do it too doesn't make it right or just. Sheep will follow each other a cliff to their deaths, would it be right for us to do the same 'in their shoes'. Of course not! Pro fails to adequately address my points that we use humans in clinical trials anyway, so use of them in more stages is perfectly logical. Literally the only argument in Pro's (plagiarised) opening round that might carry some merit is that animals have a quicker life cycle. This is fine, but then we have a large population of humans to select from, so a high turnover rate is easily debunked by a large 'stock' of humans. There are almost certainly enough humans to do adequate testing upon, and they can also be bred for testing if absolutely needed, but we don't even need to go this far. Pro affirms that we do have good measures in place to minimise the need to use animals, to which I have the following points: Excellent, Pro affirms that animal testing is undesirable The fact that 'we're trying really hard' doesn't have any impact on the is/ought question that this debate addresses. The fact that we are trying our best to minimise homicides doesn't mean it's right for those homocides that do occur to take place. It is a red herring. Another point Pro makes is that medical research has improved the well being of some animals, to which I assert that the price paid in liberties is not compensated by a few animals not going extinct. In fact I fail to see why Pro values animals not going extinct, and I would argue that any animals that were saved from extinction where probably out in that position due to human influences anyway. IV. Conclusion In conclusion, I have affirmed two things: Animal Testing for commercial purposes is indefensible Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes is unnecessary and immoral As such I hold that the resolution is negated.

positive: animal testing. I believe animal testing is a good thing. The animals are not treated with cruelty at all. The dogs are walked, and the animals are given toys to play with. If we didn't test cosmetics on them, companies can be unknowingly spread all sorts of infections to millions of people, and get sued. Animal testing saves lives each day. For example, lukemia. The survival rate used to be 5%. But they tested therapy on mice, wich raised it to 80%. Tell me what's closer to your heart? The life of a thousand rats, or the life of a thousand humans. I'm against animal cruelty, but this is one of the most important things a rat could do with it's life. Testing in animals has brought enormous advancement in the field of medical research. The cure for rabies and anthrax is thanks to animal testing. It also can lead to cures because of animal testing such as arthritis, whooping cough, leprosy, diphtheria, rubella and measles. And treatment to cardiovascular diseases. William Harvey had used dogs to find facts about blood circulation. Then later Stephan Hales discovered the means to measure blood pressure by using hares. Then Jean Poiseulle used dogs to messier blood pressure giving the world the first of it's mercury manometer for measuring blood pressure. None of this would happen without animal testing. I'd also like to emphasis humans suffering through varies diseases such as cancer and HIV can have some relief and not suffer through as much pain. Vaccines for lots of illnesses, antibiotics for infections, and insulin for diabetes have all been discovered thanks to animal testing. Not all animal testing is harmful to the animal. Animal food companies use test animals to see if a little of this or that oil in the diet makes for a healthier coat etc. People against animal testing complain it's killing animals. 95% of research animals are birds, mice, and rats. The same creatures we set out poison for so they do not get into our basements and attics. We eat them! Those are for survival, and so is animal testing.

positive: Animal testing is right when required for medical purposes. Animal testing is right when used for medical purposes such as testing new drugs used only for medical purposes. Animal testing is a debate topic that is always challenged however, should it be allowed if human lives depend on it. Animal testing has been at the heart of every medical break through for the past decade. But, is it right?

positive: animals should stop being used as testing subjects Do all animals have the same rights as humans? Some but not all, animal rights activists believe animals have inherent legal and moral rights, just as humans do. According to this viewpoint it is unethical to use animals for any purpose, whether for pets, research, recreation, clothing, or as food. Animal use in testing is a huge controversial issue. Some believe animals have the same rights as humans and should for no reason be used as test subjects for research. Others, including members of medical and scientific communities say it is unethical not to use animals in research because animal experiments can lead to medical discoveries that improve the health and well-being of both humans and animals. Human health will not improve without animal experimentation. There is of course two sides to this issue. Worldwide, animals are used in numerous experiments which inflict pain and suffering to the animal. The first testing of animals started over one hundred years ago. Since then, animal testing has been a source of emotional conflict for humans. In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act took place. This was the start of the animal rights movement. Over the years, animal activists have become increasingly vocal and/or destructive. The ways in which animal activists try to get their message across to the public varies greatly. Some conduct letter-writing campaigns, others attack laboratories and harass scientists. One of these groups is the PETA founded in 1980 by Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk. PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The group works on a wide range of issues such as biochemical testing, cosmetic testing, dissection, factory farming, neglect and abuse to animals in pet stores, and through hunting and trapping, and the wearing of fur, and non-leather footwear. The PETA is not known to be a violent group. Instead it often pulls public stunts. For example three members dressed in rabbit suits and chained themselves to a flagpole in front of Gillette head quarters in Boston, Mass. to protest the company"s use of animals in product testing. The stunt was an embarrassment to the company. While PETA may be the most visible animal rights group, it is by no means alone. There are dozens of "rights" groups who pursue a more far-reaching agenda. One of these groups is the ALF, Animal Liberation Front. This group emerged in the United States in the late 1970"s and has claimed responsibility for destroying or damaging more than one hundred labs and farms around the nation. In a world of animal testing there are a wide range of tests. These tests are done for multiple purposes, from finding a cure for a disease to testing the harshness of a shampoo or floor cleaner. Many activists claim that animal testing is not only unethical but also often scientifically unproductive. "There have been some medical advances of course but the pay off is slight. When you"re doing billions of animal experiments, it would be a miracle if there weren"t some developments," says George Cave an animal activist. When Dr. Hamm was told what George Cave said, Hamm came back with a strong argument. He discussed how childhood leukemia, used to be a death sentence but now those kids get to go home. He also discussed Hodgkin"s disease and how it is now a treatable cancer when ten years ago it was also a death sentence. Another argument he stated was how we can treat some types of liver cancer today and the research that got us there was done on animals because it had to be. There are no other alternatives exist that could give us this progress. One species that humans tend to use often in testing because they are most like ourselves is the chimpanzee. They are used in different experiments. Because chimpanzees are more like humans than any other species they are popular subjects for the development of vaccines for prevention of hepatitis B, hepatitis C and onchocerciasis. Chimpanzees are the only nonhuman animal species susceptible to these infections (Prince 115). Animal Activists are against the use of chimpanzees b/c of the decline in the chimpanzee population. In approximately the past ten years the chimpanzee population of Gabon, containing some of the best habitats, was reduced by twenty percent. There is an estimate between four thousand and five thousand chimpanzees that exist worldwide in medical institutions, zoological exhibits, roadside menageries, and entertainment compounds.

positive: We should have lab rats in labatories Alright, thanks to logical-master123 for challenging me to this debate. I'll start with some overviews. OV1) Let's be clear what this debate is about. The question here is whether or not lab rats should be used in laboratories, and as such, I will specifically defend the use of lab rats bred for the purpose. But it should also be noted what I'm not defending. I'm not forced to defend animal cruelty, nor am I required to defend specific labs or types of experiements. As long as I show that lab rats should be used in some laboratories, that's sufficient for me to win this debate. OV2) The burden of proof in this debate is on Con, since he's arguing against the status quo. He's stating that we must necessarily exclude lab rats as a type of animal testing in the laboratory. In fact, his case applies to all lab animals and not just rats, and as such he is required to either defend a better means for accomplishing these goals, or eschew lab tests as a whole. Onto rebuttals. 1. Death and harm Con's C1-C3 all might as well come under this heading. Con strays from the prompt. He starts this contention talking about rats, and then shifts to mice. Mice are non-topical, by Con's own definitions. I see this as an effort by Con to push me to defend all animal testing rather than just testing of rats, which is all I have to do. This does expand HIS burden, though. Risk exists, independent of the test subject. But pre-clinical trials are extremely important for establishing safety, which absolutely must be done. So, what should we test? Note that these mice aren't getting captured. They're often bred specifically for the lab, which means they've only known captivity. If scientists didn't do this, they would have to capture them and bring them into the lab. I'd personally say that that's worse, but more importantly, they would lose a number of genetic mutants that make it possible to understand the effects of certain treatments.[1] Without that knowledge, it would be impossible to study things like diabetes, kidney disease, immune system disorders, inflammation, allergic response, transplantation, and countless other problems that don't occur similarly in any animal aside from humans. Con's also unclear on why it matters that we treat mice (or rats) poorly. There are plenty of reasons why humans are preferred to mice, in particular our cognitive abilities make us capable of understanding right from wrong (and yes, if mice suddenly garner that understanding, I would argue against lab testing on them). I'll grant that damage to their populations and freedom is a moral hazard, though I'd say the fact that these are lab-bred rodents means that they were granted their very lives by the system Con's so thoroughly against, which means he's also arguing against the existence of these lives. 2. Lab Rats Spread Disease Con doesn't seem to realize that neither any cancer nor Parkinson's Disease are infectious.[2, 3] Unless we give an infectious disease to rodents and then don't take adequate precautions (they do [4]), there's no risk to humans from testing diseases in rodents. 3. Con's "Solution" Con says we should test in humans. First, we actually do " they're called clinical trials.[5] What Con is advocating for is extending the testing of drugs to humans in preclinical trials. Second, Con doesn't realize that preclinical studies are safety tasting. What he's advocating here is for those studies to go on first in humans, which will either encounter the same problems as with rodents (only this time with people, who can sue for damages), or no one will touch it, which will bring drug development to a halt. Third, studies in humans aren't necessarily good substitutes. Understanding treatment over a lifetime and intergenerationally can be very important. That's something we're able to do in rats very easily, but in humans it would take decades of monitoring. He says that we may one day be able to test in robots. First, we can't do this now, and so this suggestion is merely a science fiction dream. Second, even if we get robots akin to animals, they will never perfectly simulate a living system, The inherent complexity of that system will always be beyond our understanding. What Con's case amounts to is basically one large appeal to emotion. He presents a nice picture, talks about all the poor rodents, and basically ignores the issue of why we use rodents in labs at all. Now, onto my case. To be clear, what I'm arguing for is a continuation of the status quo. Treatment of animals should continue to be regulated to ensure that they're housed well and that they suffer as little as possible. With that, onto the why. 1. Harms to other animals Again, looking back at the resolution, all I have to do is affirm that we should continue to use rats. Con appears to be very concerned about mice. If rats are pulled out of labs, then those labs will simply replace them with mice. If they don"t replace them with mice, they"ll replace them with one of the dozens of other animals they have access to: dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits, pigs, and primates, for example.[] By using lab-grown rats, I"m reducing harms to most of these populations, many of which aren"t bred in the lab. 2. Importance of rats to studies I pointed this out earlier, but rats are a very genetically malleable organism. What that means is that there are multiple mutants of rats that have been bred in order to study certain diseases in rats that otherwise wouldn"t be present. This is impossible with most other organisms, mainly due to limitations in breeding and transgenic technologies. Rats, therefore, represent a necessary model for studying disease states and treatments, particularly because their behavior and physiology is more relevant to humans than other rodents.[1] It"s for this reason that the amount of scientific literature that has been produced using rats as a model species is staggeringly large, with rats and mice making up 95% of all animal research and rats being used 50% more often than mice.[1, 7] We can attribute the vast majority of pharmaceuticals and treatment methods to rats first and foremost. 3. Why we should care We should be most concerned with the continued survival and quality of life of our own species. Our preservation should come first and foremost, and as long as that requires doing studies in other organisms, that"s what we have to do. I know this sounds anthropocentric, but Con isn"t really seeking to protect all animals anyway since he"s just trying to prevent scientists from harming this particular rodent. If he really cared, he"d be extending this to all life forms tested in the laboratory, though that would require that we consider the countless insects and even bacteria tested in labs across the country. He provides no particular reason why rats are special, and we cannot realistically stop all research with every form of life that exists without dooming humanity to death by the next plague that comes our way. Sure, in a perfect world, no creature would have to endure harm, but we don"t live in a perfect world, and we cannot function solely based off of a sense of empathy with some lab-grown rats. The facts are as follows: nearly every medical breakthrough in recent history has resulted directly from research using animals, particularly when it comes to vaccines, cancers, and heart disease.[8] Rats make up a substantial proportion of these. The alternatives for animal testing simply aren't ready to replace them. Moreover, even if we care about animals, the research helps them as well, offering treatments to many diseases that afflict both them and humans.[9] The benefits are clear. With that, I hand the debate back to Con. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://bit.ly... 3. http://1.usa.gov... 4. http://bit.ly... 5. http://1.usa.gov... 6. http://bit.ly... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://bit.ly... 9. http://bit.ly...

positive: animal testing. The most reason animal testing should be abolished is, we should respect animal.As you know, mankind and animal have one same thing, it is both are organism. The ultimate of reason that we are living is because, to enjoy our life, I mean to make fun with others. But how would you feel if you are trapped in a small room to used by others just because you're weaker than them? You'll said that it's unfair, because they don't even ask about your position. Some might said we shouldn't treat human and animal likewise. Anyway what I think like is this " If we are birthed in Earth, every organism no matter of their power, must treated same." Because, animals didn't choose to be animal, they didn't choose to be weaker than human, they didn't even choose to be laboratory animals. According to these reasons, I believe animal testing should be banned.---Source: http://animal-testing.procon.org...--- If you have enough time, I recommend you to read about--- Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." [47] The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. [48, 49] The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. [65, 102] The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. [26]Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. [15] Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [15, 50, 51] Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. [50]Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. [52] Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that "it's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the human." [53] Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats." [54] Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. [5] Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. [109, 110] Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market. [55, 56]Animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments. Some chemicals that are harmful to animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species, and Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was "almost shelved" because of animal test results, according to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH. [105] A June 1, 2006 report on Slate.com stated that a "source of human suffering may be the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be relevant for humans." [106] 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA. [1, 2, 26]Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. [57] According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates. [58] A 2013 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. [59, 58] A 2013 study in Archives of Toxicology stated that "The low predictivity of animal experiments in research areas allowing direct comparisons of mouse versus human data puts strong doubt on the usefulness of animal data as key technology to predict human safety." [60] Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts. An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while the in vitro alternative costs $11,000. A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300. A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200. A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research. [61, 62, 63]Most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects. A 2009 peer-reviewed study found serious flaws in the majority of publicly funded US and UK animal studies using rodents and primates. 87% of the studies failed to randomize the selection of animals (a technique used to reduce "selection bias") and 86% did not use "blinding" (another technique to reduce researcher bias). Also, "only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used." [64] Since the majority of animals used in biomedical research are killed during or after the experiments, and since many suffer during the studies, the lives and wellbeing of animals are routinely sacrificed for poor research. [65]Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. [66, 67] As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" [66]The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. [68] In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee. [69]Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them. In the Bible, Proverbs 12:10 states: "A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast..." [70] The Hindu doctrine of ahimsa teaches the principle of not doing harm to other living beings. [103] The Buddhist doctrine of right livelihood dissuades Buddhists from doing any harm to animals. [46]Medical breakthroughs involving animal research may still have been made without the use of animals. There is no evidence that animal experiments were essential in making major medical advances, and if enough money and resources were devoted to animal-free alternatives, other solutions would be found.

negative: Animal testing. What is animal testing? http://en.wikipedia.org... I will allow my opponent to make the opening argument.

negative: should animals be used for scientific research This is the second time this has happened to me, someone instigating a challenge with a short response period and then going offline. It's honestly annoying since these kinds of debates have potential. Extend refutation.

negative: Commercial Debate Alright, thanks for telling me that that commercial was too long. It has a surprise ending (though you can tell what is happening by the title), and I think that it conveys its message very well. Loved your commercials, thanks for debating.

negative: Commercial Debate This commercial is very emotional, and nostalgic, since it deals with an event that we all are going to go through.

negative: Animals should be used for Medical Research My opponent has forfeited the last round. Since my opponent was unable to argue, I am unable to argue back.

negative: Animals should be used for testing Yes, but an Ape would work. And the Animal testing is still needed. The Alternative methods usually use single cells, not that good. And I'm pretty sure an experiment wouldn't get passed if it weren't possible. We can't fix all the diseases, but we can try.

negative: Death Row Inmates Should be Used for Medical or Scientific Testing Without Consent For the purpose of the debate, assume the death penalty is being used against murderers (not counting accidental murders) and assume the criminal justice system is perfect (no one is wrongly found guilty in court).

negative: Animals should be used for testing Computers have been known to fail, and animals are only ineffective from the use of non-mammalian species.

negative: Stem cell research on all types of stem cells should be completely legal Thank you for accepting. I will be taking a scientific approach to this argument. First, let's establish a basic definition of what a disease is. A disease is "a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment (1)." Many people suffer from incurable diseases all around the world today, but what if we could find a potential cure for these through stem cell research? I believe that stem cell research should be legal to practice on all stem cell types because it can provide us with valuable medical information, there are multiple different stem cell types that we can study, and because many excess embryos from in-vitro fertilization go unused or are wasted. --------------------------- Before I get into my main arguments, I will briefly address the three main arguments behind the opposition of stem cell research on all types of stem cells. The first main argument is that scientists are not certain stem cell research will provide us with many cures to incurable diseases. Just because we are not certain that it will provide us with cures, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try though. The next main argument is that it could create problems with overpopulation around the world. This argument is invalid, to a point, because the majority of the diseases that could be cured are not terminal. The last main argument against stem cell research involves ethics, and whether an embryo is life or not. According to an article in TIME magazine, "an embryo used in stem-cell research (and fertility treatments) is three to five days past conception. It consists of a few dozen cells that together are too small to be seen without a microscope. It has no consciousness, no self-awareness, and no ability to feel love or pain (3)." In a way, an embryo at this stage could be compared blueprints to a potential human life. ----------------------- First, I will be talking about the valuable information that stem cell research can provide us with. http://www.youth-restored.com... When looking at the diagram above, you can see that there is a lot of information that can come from stem cell research. The first thing it could provide us with is safer medications. Many new medications are tested for safety on rats. On occasions, medications may not affect a rat in negative ways, but it could cause a complications within a human. Testing on differentiated stem cells can provide us with safer medication testing because we can test these medications on human cells developed from stem cells. This could lead to the avoidance of having new medications that end up harming a human when it didn't harm a rat. "Cultures of cancer cells are already used for screening cancer drugs, and growing embryonic stem cells into heart, liver or nerve cells could be useful for testing drugs that affect those organs (4)." This shows that small amounts of stem cell research is beginning to improve our methods and effectiveness of medicinal treatments. The second thing it can provide us with is information on early development and stem cell differentiation. "Studies of human embryonic stem cells will yield information about the complex events that occur during human development. A primary goal of this work is to identify how undifferentiated stem cells become the differentiated cells that form the tissues and organs (5)." Studies on early development and stem cell differentiation can help us learn how to prevent birth defects and even potentially prevent cancer from developing (since cancer is when cells can"t stop dividing). The main thing that stem cells can provide us with is cell/tissue transplantation. According to an article by Guido de Wert in the Oxford University Press, stem cells can be stimulated to differentiate into any type of cell needed for a patient, then it can be transplanted into their body to repair damaged cells or to replace cells that have lost function. Diseases that can be potentially cured from this are: diabetes, Parkinson"s disease, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer"s, spinal cord injury, and many others (6). As you can see, a lot of the diseases that could potentially be cured are not terminal, but could enhance a person's life if treated. The last area on the diagram above is a blank box because, to put it simply, there is so much more than the things I have covered that stem cell research could provide us with that is still unknown today. ----------------------- Next, I will be talking about the different types of stem cells that are available and how successful they are. In the past ten years, scientists have been finding new ways to obtain stem cells for research. Until recently, scientists primarily worked with two kinds of stem cells from animals and humans: embryonic stem cells and somatic (adult) stem cells. In 2006, researchers made another breakthrough by identifying conditions that would allow some specialized adult cells to be "reprogrammed" genetically to assume a stem cell-like state (5). The chart below will show the effectiveness of the three types of stem cells: http://www.lifelineskincare.com... While we can study different stem cells that are not from a human embryo, this chart shows that human embryonic stem cells are the most effective in research. Human embryonic stem cells should still be used though because they are the most effective in research (like I stated before), and because scientists believe it is wise to continue research on all types of stem cells so that we can obtain the most accurate information. ----------------------- Lastly, I will talk about how many excess embryos from in-vitro fertilization go unused or are thawed. The main reason that people oppose the use of human embryonic stem cells (specifically) is because it could potentially render it incapable of growing into a human being. This is an understandable argument, but many excess embryos are wasted or killed either way. Instead of wasting these embryos, we could use them for stem cell research. When a couple has excess embryos from in-vitro fertilization (and they don't want anymore children), they have ultimately four options on what to do with them: 1.Donate them to another couple. Many couples don"t choose this because they cannot bear the idea of their biological children growing up in another family and out of their care. 2.Thaw them (discard). 3.Donate the for stem cell research. 4.Store them. Many couples end up storing the excess embryos indefinitely because they can"t decide on what to do with them, or because all other options are undesirable. In a survey of around 1,000 fertility patients who had excess embryos, 53% didn't want to donate them to another couple, 43% didn't want them to be discarded, and 66% actually wanted to donate them for stem cell research. The majority of these parents weren't allowed this option though because their clinic didn't allow it as an option (7). So because of this, many embryos end up getting frozen and stored indefinitely until they are unusable for anyone and have to be discarded. Also, the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology went around to U.S. fertility clinics and counted that around half a million embryos (and counting) were being stored in 2002 (8). If this many embryos are being wasted, shouldn't we use them for a purpose through stem cell research? ----------------------- In order to take steps toward curing incurable diseases, we must continue stem cell research on all types of stem cells. Since there are half a million (and counting) unused embryos in storage, we should give them purpose by using them for research. If we could potentially restore a person's ability to walk, why shouldn't we take the measures to do so? Back to you, Con. ----------------------- (1)"Disease." Def. 1. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 23 Feb. 2015. (2)Kinsley, Michael. "The False Controversy of Stem Cells." Time. Time Inc., 23 May 2004. Web. 23 Feb. 2015. (3)"How Can Stem Cells Advance Medicine?" Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015. (4)"Stem Cell Basics." Stem Cell Information. National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 7 June 2012. Web. 10 Feb. 2015. (5)De Wert, Guido, and Christine Mummery. "Human Embryonic Stem Cells: Research, Ethics and Policy." Human Reproduction. Oxford University Press, Apr. 2003. Web. 9 Feb. 2015. (6)Parker-Pope, Tara. "Deciding the Fate of Frozen Embryos." Well. The New York Times, 08 Dec. 2008. Web. 10 Feb. 2015. (7)Mundy, Liza. "Souls on Ice: America's Embryo Glut and the Wasted Promise of Stem CellResearch." Mother Jones. July-Aug. 2006. Web. 9 Feb. 2015.

negative: Testing on animals is wrong! Why would animals be any less important than humans? They practically sustain us in our life, and they are the main reason that we are even still alive!!

negative: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. I believe that animals should be used for scientific and commercial purposes( animal testing). Con must argue against.Acceptance first

negative: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. I will argue that animals should not be used for scientific/commercial testing. I am rather on the fence on this topic myself so the results of the debate are of significant interest to me. I presume this will be a debate on ethics, correct me if not.

negative: is animal testing ethical Should scientist be able to test on animals before they test on humans?

negative: animal testing is wrong I will argue the con I do not believe in testing products on animals making them suffer... it is wrong in every way. they have feelings too.

negative: All negative points A vaccine controversy is a dispute over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, and safety of vaccination. The medical and scientific evidence is that the benefits of preventing suffering and death from infectious diseases outweigh rare adverse effects of immunization.[1][2] Since vaccination began in the late 18th century, opponents have claimed that vaccines do not work, that they are or may be dangerous, that individuals should rely on personal hygiene instead, or that mandatory vaccinations violate individual rights or religious principles.[3] Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern: some investigators suggest that a medical condition is an adverse effect of vaccination; a premature announcement is made of the alleged adverse effect; the initial study is not reproduced by other groups; and finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.[1] Mass vaccination helped eradicate smallpox, which once killed as many as every seventh child in Europe.[4] Vaccination has almost eradicated polio.[5] As a more modest example, incidence of invasive disease with Haemophilus influenzae, a major cause of bacterial meningitis and other serious disease in children, has decreased by over 99% in the U.S. since the introduction of a vaccine in 1988.[6] Fully vaccinating all U.S. children born in a given year from birth to adolescence saves an estimated 33,000 lives and prevents an estimated 14 million infections.[7] Some vaccine critics claim that there have never been any benefits to public health from vaccination.[8][9] They argue that all the reduction of communicable diseases which were rampant in conditions where overcrowding, poor sanitation, almost non-existent hygiene and a yearly period of very restricted diet existed, are reduced because of changes in conditions excepting vaccination.[9] Other critics argue that immunity given by vaccines is only temporary and requires boosters, whereas those who survive the disease become permanently immune.[3] As discussed below, the philosophies of some alternative medicine practitioners are incompatible with the idea that vaccines are effective.[10] Children who survive diseases such as diphtheria develop a natural immunity that lasts longer than immunity developed via vaccination. Even though the overall mortality rate is much lower with vaccination, the percentage of adults protected against the disease may also be lower.[11] Vaccination critics argue that for diseases like diphtheria the extra risk to older or weaker adults may outweigh the benefit of lowering the mortality rate among the general population.[12] [edit] Population health Lack of complete vaccine coverage increases the risk of disease for the entire population, including those who have been vaccinated. One study found that doubling the number of unvaccinated individuals would increase the risk of measles in vaccinated children anywhere from 5–30%.[13] A second study provided evidence that the risk of measles and pertussis increased in vaccinated children proportionally to the number of unvaccinated individuals among them, again highlighting the evident efficacy of widespread vaccine coverage for public health.[14] [edit] Cost-effectiveness Commonly-used vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the year 2001, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall social costs including $10 billion in direct health costs, and the societal benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5.[15] [edit] Events following reductions in vaccination In several countries, reductions in the use of some vaccines were followed by increases in the diseases' morbidity and mortality.[16][17] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, continued high levels of vaccine coverage are necessary to prevent resurgence of diseases which have been nearly eliminated.[18] Stockholm, smallpox (1873–74) An anti-vaccination campaign motivated by religious objections, by concerns about effectiveness, and by concerns about individual rights, led to the vaccination rate in Stockholm dropping to just over 40%, compared to about 90% elsewhere in Sweden. A major smallpox epidemic then started in 1873. It led to a rise in vaccine uptake and an end of the epidemic.[19] In a postwar poster the Ministry of Health urged British residents to immunize children against diphtheria.UK, DPT (1970s–80s) A 1974 report ascribed 36 reactions to whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine, a prominent public-health academic claimed that the vaccine was only marginally effective and questioned whether its benefits outweigh its risks, and extended television and press coverage caused a scare. Vaccine uptake in the UK decreased from 81% to 31% and pertussis epidemics followed, leading to deaths of some children. Mainstream medical opinion continued to support the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine; public confidence was restored after the publication of a national reassessment of vaccine efficacy. Vaccine uptake then increased to levels above 90% and disease incidence declined dramatically.[16] Sweden, pertussis (1979–96) In the vaccination moratorium period that occurred when Sweden suspended vaccination against whooping cough (pertussis) from 1979 to 1996, 60% of the country's children contracted the potentially fatal disease before the age of ten years; close medical monitoring kept the death rate from whooping cough at about one per year.[17] Pertussis continues to be a major health problem in developing countries, where mass vaccination is not practiced; the World Health Organization estimates it caused 294,000 deaths in 2002.[20] Netherlands, measles (1999–2000) An outbreak at a religious community and school in The Netherlands illustrates the effect of measles in an unvaccinated population.[21] The population in the several provinces affected had a high level of immunization with the exception of one of the religious denominations who traditionally do not accept vaccination. The three measles-related deaths and 68 hospitalizations that occurred among 2961 cases in the Netherlands demonstrate that measles can be severe and may result in death even in industrialized countries. UK and Ireland, measles (2000) As a result of the MMR vaccine controversy vaccination compliance dropped sharply in the United Kingdom after 1996.[22] From late 1999 until the summer of 2000, there was a measles outbreak in North Dublin, Ireland. At the time, the national immunization level had fallen below 80%, and in part of North Dublin the level was around 60%. There were more than 100 hospital admissions from over 300 cases. Three children died and several more were gravely ill, some requiring mechanical ventilation to recover.[23] Nigeria, polio, measles, diphtheria (2001 onward) In the early 2000s, conservative religious leaders in northern Nigeria, suspicious of Western medicine, advised their followers to not have their children vaccinated with oral polio vaccine. The boycott was endorsed by the governor of Kano State, and immunization was suspended for several months. Subsequently, polio reappeared in a dozen formerly polio-free neighbors of Nigeria, and genetic tests showed the virus was the same one that originated in northern Nigeria: Nigeria had become a net exporter of polio virus to its African neighbors. People in the northern states were also reported to be wary of other vaccinations, and Nigeria reported over 20,000 measles cases and nearly 600 deaths from measles from January through March 2005.[24] In 2006 Nigeria accounted for over half of all new polio cases worldwide.[25] Outbreaks continued thereafter; for example, at least 200 children died in a late-2007 measles outbreak in Borno State.[26] Indiana, USA, measles (2005) A 2005 measles outbreak in the US state of Indiana was attributed to parents who had refused to have their children vaccinated.[27] Most cases of pediatric tetanus in the U.S. occur in children whose parents objected to their vaccination.[28] [edit] Safety Few deny the vast improvements vaccination has made to public health; a more common concern is their safety.[29] All vaccines may cause side effects, and immunization safety is a real concern. Unlike most other medical interventions, vaccines are given to healthy people, and people are far less willing to tolerate vaccines' adverse effects than adverse effects of other treatments. As the success of immunization programs increases and the incidence of disease decreases, public attention shifts away from the risks of disease to the risk of vaccination,[1] and it becomes challenging for health authorities to preserve public support for vaccination programs.[30] Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern. First, some investigators suggest that a medical condition of increasing prevalence or unknown cause is an adverse effect of vaccination. The initial study, and subsequent studies by the same group, have inadequate methodology, typically a poorly controlled or uncontrolled case series. A premature announcement is made of the alleged adverse effect, resonating with individuals suffering the condition, and underestimating the potential harm to those whom the vaccine could protect. The initial study is not reproduced by other groups. Finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.[1] Controversies in this area revolve around the question of whether the risks of perceived adverse events following immunization outweigh the benefits of preventing adverse effects of common diseases. There is scientific evidence that in rare cases immunizations can cause adverse events, such as oral polio vaccine causing paralysis. Current scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis of causation for more-common disorders such as autism.[1] Although the hypotheses that vaccines cause autism are biologically implausible, it would be hard to study scientifically whether autism is less common in children who do not follow recommended vaccination schedules, due to the ethics of basing experiments on withholding vaccines from children, and due to the likely differences in health care seeking behaviors of undervaccinated children.[31] [edit] Vaccine overload Vaccine overload is the assertion that giving many vaccines at once may overwhelm or weaken a child's immune system, and lead to adverse effects. It has been presented as a cause for autism. Although no scientific evidence supports this idea, it has caused many parents to delay or avoid immunizing their children.[32] The idea has several flaws.[31] For example, common childhood conditions such as fevers and middle ear infections pose a much greater challenge to the immune system than vaccines do.[33] Also, because of changes in vaccine formulation, the number of immunological components in the fourteen vaccines administered to U.S. children in 2009 is less than 10% of what it was in the seven vaccines given in 1980.[31] Numerous studies have tested the assertion that "vaccine overload" damages the immune system, generally by studying whether vaccination increases the risk of acquiring other (non-vaccine-preventable) infectious diseases. These studies have repeatedly found that vaccine burden does not compromise overall immunity.[34] The lack of evidence supporting the vaccine overload hypothesis, combined with these findings directly contradicting it, have led to the conclusion that currently recommended vaccine programs do not "overload" or weaken the immune system.[35] [edit] Thiomersal Main article: Thiomersal controversy In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) asked vaccine makers to remove the organomercury compound thiomersal from vaccines as quickly as possible, and thiomersal has been phased out of U.S. and European vaccines, except for some preparations of influenza vaccine.[36] The CDC and the AAP followed the precautionary principle, which assumes that there is no harm in exercising caution even if it later turns out to be unwarranted, but their 1999 action sparked confusion and controversy that has diverted attention and resources away from efforts to determine the causes of autism.[36] Since 2000, the thiomersal in child vaccines has been alleged to contribute to autism, and thousands of parents in the United States have pursued legal compensation from a federal fund.[37] A 2004 Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee favored rejecting any causal relationship between thiomersal-containing vaccines and autism.[38] Currently there is no accepted scientific evidence that exposure to thiomersal is a factor in causing autism.[39] [edit] MMR vaccine Main article: MMR vaccine controversy In the UK, the MMR vaccine was the subject of controversy after publication in The Lancet of a 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield, et al., reporting a study of 12 children mostly with autism spectrum disorders with onset soon after administration of the vaccine.[40] During a 1998 press conference, Wakefield suggested that giving children the vaccines in three separate doses would be safer than a single vaccination. This suggestion was not supported by the paper, and several subsequent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show any association between the vaccine and autism.[41] It later emerged that Wakefield had received funding from litigants against vaccine manufacturers and that Wakefield had not informed colleagues or medical authorities of his conflict of interest;[42] had this been known, publication in The Lancet would not have taken place in the way that it did.[43] Wakefield has been heavily criticized on scientific grounds and for triggering a decline in vaccination rates,[44] as well as on ethical grounds for the way the research was conducted.[45] In 2009 The Sunday Times reported that Wakefield had manipulated patient data and misreported results in his 1998 paper, creating the appearance of a link with autism.[46] In 2004 the MMR-and-autism interpretation of the paper was formally retracted by 10 of Wakefield's 12 co-authors.[47] The CDC,[48] the IOM of the National Academy of Sciences,[49] and the UK National Health Service[50] have all concluded that there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. A systematic review by the Cochrane Library concluded that there is no credible link between the MMR vaccine and autism, that MMR has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, that the lack of confidence in MMR has damaged public health, and that design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies are largely inadequate.[2] A special court convened in the United States to review claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ruled on 12 February 2009 that parents of autistic children are not entitled to compensation in their contention that certain vaccines caused autism in their children.[51] [edit] Prenatal infection There is evidence that schizophrenia is associated with prenatal exposure to rubella, influenza, and toxoplasmosis infection. For example, one study found a seven-fold increased risk of schizophrenia when mothers were exposed to influenza in the first trimester of gestation. This may have public health implications, as strategies for preventing infection include vaccination, antibiotics, and simple hygiene.[52] When weighing the benefits of protecting the woman and fetus from influenza against the potential risk of vaccine-induced antibodies that could conceivably contribute to schizophrenia, influenza vaccination for women of reproductive age still makes sense, but it is not known whether vaccination during pregnancy helps or harms.[53] The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all recommend routine flu shots for pregnant women, for several reasons:[54] their risk for serious influenza-related medical complications during the last two trimesters; their greater rates for flu-related hospitalizations compared to nonpregnant women; the possible transfer of maternal anti-influenza antibodies to children, protecting the children from the flu; and several studies that found no harm to pregnant women or their children from the vaccinations. Despite this recommendation, only 16% of healthy pregnant U.S. women surveyed in 2005 had been vaccinated against the flu.[54] [edit] Aluminum Aluminum compounds are used as immunologic adjuvants to increase the effectiveness of many vaccines.[55] Although the quantities of aluminum ingested in this way are much smaller than the quantities ingested from other sources such as infant formula,[56] questions have been raised about the safety of aluminum used in vaccines.[57] In some cases these compounds have been associated with redness, itching, and low-grade fever,[55] and aluminum as such is considered neurotoxic for humans, but its use in vaccines has not been associated with serious adverse events.[58] In some cases aluminum-containing vaccines are associated with macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF), localized microscopic lesions containing aluminum salts that persist up to 8 years. However, recent case-controlled studies have found no specific clinical symptoms in individuals with biopsies showing MMF, and there is no evidence that aluminum-containing vaccines are a serious health risk or justify changes to immunization practice.[58] [edit] Individual liberty Further information: Vaccination policy Compulsory vaccination policies have provoked opposition at various times from people who say that governments should not infringe on the freedom of an individual to choose medications, even if the choice increases the risk of disease to themselves and others.[3][59] If a vaccination program successfully reduces the disease threat, it may reduce the perceived risk of disease enough so that an individual's optimal strategy is to refuse vaccination at coverage levels below those optimal for the community.[60] If many exemptions are granted to mandatory vaccination rules, the resulting free rider problem may cause loss of herd immunity, substantially increasing risks even to vaccinated individuals.[61] [edit] Religion Main article: Vaccination and religion Vaccination has been opposed on religious grounds ever since it was introduced, even when vaccination is not compulsory. Some Christian opponents argued, when vaccination was first becoming widespread, that if God had decreed that someone should die of smallpox, it would be a sin to thwart God's will via vaccination.[62] Religious opposition continues to the present day, on various grounds, raising ethical difficulties when the number of unvaccinated children threatens harm to the entire population.[61] Many governments allow parents to opt out of their children's otherwise-mandatory vaccinations for religious reasons; some parents falsely claim religious beliefs to get vaccination exemptions.[63] [edit] Alternative medicine Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies that oppose vaccination and have practitioners who voice their opposition. These include anthroposophy, some elements of the chiropractic community, non-medically trained homoeopaths, and naturopaths.[10] Historically, chiropractic strongly opposed vaccination based on its belief that all diseases were traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore could not be affected by vaccines; Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, wrote, "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison."[64] Vaccination remains controversial within chiropractic.[65] Although most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects,[64] antivaccination sentiment is espoused by what appears to be a minority of chiropractors.[65] The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractic Association support individual exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws, and a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease.[65] While the Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination,[64] a survey in Alberta in 2002 found that 25% of chiropractors advised patients for, and 27% against, vaccinating themselves or their children.[66] Although most chiropractic colleges try to teach about vaccination responsibly, several have faculty who seem to stress negative views.[65] A survey of a 1999–2000 cross section of students of Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, which does not formally teach antivaccination views, reported that fourth-year students opposed vaccination more strongly than first-years, with 29.4% of fourth-years opposing vaccination.[67] Several surveys have shown that some practitioners of homeopathy, particularly homeopaths without any medical training, advise patients against vaccination.[68] For example, a survey of registered homeopaths in Austria found that only 28% considered immunization to be an important preventive measure, and 83% of homeopaths surveyed in Sydney, Australia did not recommend vaccination.[10] Many practitioners of naturopathy also oppose vaccination.[10] [edit] Financial motives Critics of vaccines state that the profit motive explains why vaccination is required, and that vaccine makers cover up or suppress information, or generate misinformation, about safety or effectiveness.[3] Some vaccine critics allegedly have financial motives for criticizing vaccines.[45] Legal counsel and expert witnesses employed in anti-vaccine cases may be motivated by profit.[69] In the late 20th century, vaccines were a product with low profit margins.[70] The number of companies involved in vaccine manufacture declined, with only Merck, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi continuing major production. In addition to low profits and liability risks, manufacturers complained about low prices paid for vaccines by the CDC and other U.S. government agencies.[71] In the early 21st century the vaccine market greatly improved with the approval of the vaccine Prevnar (a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine), along with a small number of other highly-priced blockbuster vaccines such as Gardasil and Pediarix that each provided sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008.[70] [edit] Dispute resolution Main article: Vaccine court The U.S. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created to provide a federal no-fault system for compensating vaccine-related injuries or death. It is funded by a 75 cent excise tax on vaccines sold in the country and was established after a scare in the 1980s over the DPT vaccine: even though claims of side effects were later generally discredited, large jury awards had been given to some claimants of DPT vaccine injuries, and most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production. Claims against vaccine manufacturers must be heard first in the vaccine court.[37] By 2008 the fund had paid out 2,114 awards totaling $1.7 billion.[72] Thousands of cases of autism-related claims are pending before the court, and have not yet been resolved.[37] In 2008 the government conceded one case concerning a child who had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder and whose autism-like symptoms came after five simultaneous injections against nine diseases.[73] [edit] History Edward JennerReligious arguments against inoculation were advanced even before the work of Edward Jenner; for example, in a 1772 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation" the English theologian Rev. Edward Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation".[62] Some anti-vaccinationists still base their stance against vaccination with reference to their religious beliefs.[74] After Jenner's work, vaccination became widespread in the United Kingdom in the early 1800s.[75] Variolation, which had preceded vaccination, was banned in 1840 because of its greater risks. Public policy and successive Vaccination Acts first encouraged vaccination and then made it mandatory for all infants in 1853, with the highest penalty for refusal being a prison sentence. This was a significant change in the relationship between the British state and its citizens, and there was a public backlash. After an 1867 law extended the requirement to age 14 years, its opponents focused concern on infringement of individual freedom, and eventually a 1898 law allowed for conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination.[3] In the 19th century, the city of Leicester in the UK achieved a high level of isolation of smallpox cases and great reduction in spread compared to other areas. The mainstay of Leicester's approach to conquering smallpox was to decline vaccination and put their public funds into sanitary improvements.[76] Bigg's account of the public health procedures in Leicester, presented as evidence to the Royal Commission, refers to erysipelas, an infection of the superficial tissues which was a complication of any surgical procedure. In the U.S., President Thomas Jefferson took a close interest in vaccination, alongside Dr. Waterhouse, chief physician at Boston. Jefferson encouraged the development of ways to transport vaccine material through the Southern states, which included measures to avoid damage by heat, a leading cause of ineffective batches. Smallpox outbreaks were contained by the latter half of the 19th century, a development widely attributed to vaccination of a large portion of the population.[77] Vaccination rates fell after this decline in smallpox cases, and the disease again became epidemic in the 1870s (see smallpox). 1904 cartoon opposing the mandatory vaccination law in Brazil. "The Congress", depicted as a Roman Caesar, threatens "the People", in rags, with a sharp object and shackles.Anti-vaccination activity increased again in the U.S. in the late 19th century. After a visit to New York in 1879 by William Tebb, a prominent British anti-vaccinationist, the Anti-Vaccination Society of America was founded. The New England Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League was formed in 1882, and the Anti-Vaccination League of New York City in 1885. John Pitcairn, the wealthy founder of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company (now PPG Industries) emerged as a major financer and leader of the American anti-vaccination movement. On March 5, 1907, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he delivered an address to the Committee on Public Health and Sanitation of the Pennsylvania General Assembly criticizing vaccination.[78] He later sponsored the National Anti-Vaccination Conference, which, held in Philadelphia on October, 1908, led to the creation of The Anti-Vaccination League of America. When the League was organized later that month, Pitcairn was chosen to be its first president.[79] On December 1, 1911, he was appointed by Pennsylvania Governor John K. Tener to the Pennsylvania State Vaccination Commission, and subsequently authored a detailed report strongly opposing the Commission's conclusions.[79] He continued to be a staunch opponent of vaccination until his death in 1916. In November 1904, in response to years of inadequate sanitation and disease, followed by a poorly-explained public health campaign led by the renowned Brazilian public health official Oswaldo Cruz, citizens and military cadets in Rio de Janeiro arose in a Revolta da Vacina or Vaccine Revolt. Riots broke out on the day a vaccination law took effect; vaccination symbolized the most feared and most tangible aspect of a public health plan that included other features such as urban renewal that many had opposed for years.[80] In the early 19th century, the anti-vaccination movement drew members from across a wide range of society; more recently, it has been reduced to a predominantly middle-class phenomenon.[81] Arguments against vaccines in the 21st century are often similar to those of 19th-century anti-vaccinationists URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccinationist

negative: Animals shouldn't be used in circuses I say that they should be in circuses they are for are entertainment and the are neat to see

negative: Animal Testing Animals should, and must, be used for research because, animals are the only other living organisms that are closely related enough to humans to be able to test, animals hold the key to understanding scientific discoveries that impact human medical conditions, and the scientific discoveries found by using lab-test animals helps save lives and can improve the quality of life for many people. Humans must test drugs on "something" to see if it will work. That "something" should be a living organism. We can not test drugs in rocks, so we use animals. Some people ask why don"t we test drugs in humans? First, because testing drugs in humans is considered inhumane. The outcomes for drug testing is unpredictable and could have mild to severe side effects. Also, in many cases, the test animals must be monitored and kept in a controlled experiment. This would be hard to do for people with responsibilities to their families and jobs. Second, many drug tests fail, again causing harm or death to the lab animal. What seems more detrimental would be to use humans as test cases. Unfortunately, Nazis used humans as test subjects. That part of world history is atrocious. The inhumanity that the Jewish people endured in the name of science should never happen again. Author James Morcan writes, "The ends justify the means mindset has been the impetus behind many a cruel medical or social experiment" (Goodreads) Using lab test animals is the only way at this point in science to help advance medical knowledge and improve the quality of life for people without having to use people as test subjects. It is true that "More than 90 percent of basic science discoveries from experiments on animals fail to lead to human treatments"(2018, peta). However, the ten percent that does succeed are huge scientific discoveries. One huge discovery, for example, is Ketamine. Ketamine is also known as a brand name called Ketalar. This medication is used as anesthesia at the start of surgery and throughout surgery. Ketalar is a key medicine that allows surgeons to operate because it puts a person in a trance-like state, provides pain relief, sedates people, and creates short-term memory loss of the surgical experience (Wikipedia). When this drug was made it was tested on zebrafish. The scientists that tested this drug had tanks full of zebrafish; furthermore, within each tank, the water had different amount of this drug in it. If too much drug was in the water the fish "mutated." You don"t really want to create mutated humans, do you? Ketamine is now a life saving substance that when tested on animals had its faults, but that doesn't make it any less of a life saver. What would happen if scientists immediately stopped using lab animals as test subjects? Frankie Trull, president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) has an answer for this. She says, "An immediate end to animal research in the U.S. would be a death sentence for millions of people around the world." If you have ever taken a drug for any medical reasons, you can thank the animals that had there life lost or had there life changed through these drug tests. For example, penicillin is an antibiotic medicine that has had a huge impact on society. Penicillin was discovered by research scientist Sir Alexander Fleming in 1928 who tested it on animals first to make sure that it was non-toxic to humans. Then in 1940, Sir Howard Florey tested penicillin on mice infected with bacteria and found out that the mice that were given penicillin survived. Because of what these two scientist discovered through these tests on lab mice, doctors are now able to prescribe this antibiotic to save people"s lives. Without penicillin and other antibiotics, the number of people dying from infections each year would be significantly higher. Drugs used for medical purposes change the lives of others for the better and can save human lives. Without animals to test drugs on we have two options. One, use humans as blatant test dummies. Or two, give humans drugs when necessary and get information off of their suffering. Animals must be used for research to improve our lives and the development of the human race because animals are a necessary test subject, animals are the key to scientific discoveries, and the scientific discoveries found by using lab-test animals helps save lives and improve the quality of life for many people. "The contributions of animal research to medical science and human health are undeniable... When the majority of scientists see the work as scientifically justified, and so do the many professional medical and scientific organizations, the expert views cannot be simply dismissed based on wild claims of ulterior motives, self-interest and conspiracy theories" (2017, Pro-con). We have been teasing animals since the ancient greeks (Wiki), so why stop now?

negative: Animal Rights Estimated 26 million animals are used for commercial and scientific testing every year in the U.S. Used to determine the toxicity of medication and to develop medical treatments, that is destined for human use. How come we allow these creatures to be tortured and killed? People might think it is a necessary evil to improve the survival of the human race. They might be right too but researches have figured out that animals are a lot more like us. The animals have feelings just like us. They can feel the same pain as we can and I find it is hard to understand why people fail to see that. It has been proven that pigs can feel pain, affection, excitement, experience stress and even feel love. They can get depressed very easily if they are denied to interact with each other or isolated. How is that different from us? Won't we feel depressed if we don't interact with other people? Yes, these tests on animals have saved human lives but for what costs? Millions upon millions of animals that are caged and tortured their entire life. Some of these medications do not even work in the end. The animals died for nothing at all. I can't help but think what if human beings were caged and tortured for experiments?

negative: The medical and scientific advances far outweighs the minor inconveniences I have seen far too many "cruel, uncaring, unthoughtful, sadistic, etc." comments, pure hatred and direct insults. If that is how you conduct a debate, and bring up pathetic evidence, then take some debate classes. Would you, yourself, those who ask us to give ourselves to science, put yourself up for science? Would willingly put yourself in harm? It goes both ways. Or another point, how about the medical advances NOT just to humans but animals? Did you know animal testing for humans has subsequently led to advances TOWARDS animals? Did you know the procedures conducted on humans today are now conducted on animals? That we can extend not only the life of humans but other inferior animals? And did you also know about evolution and lifespans and generations? Or about diverging evolutionary points? Or that we share genes in common? Know about the Sonic Hedgehog gene? It gives the Hemingway cats an extra toe. It also causes fruit flies to grow legs instead of antennas. Did you know it also is found in humans? What about a gene in several breeds of dogs that causes their "wrinkles" and bouts of fever? Did you know it is also in humans? I could sit here and list countless biological and genetic similarities (tautologies for the win!) but it's extraneous to the point. The conditions are getting better in which animals are being treated. Did you know about the Thee Rs for animal research? I doubt it. Have you forgotten all the medical advances of human history? They were due to sacrifices on behalf of animals. Did you know you wouldn't have most likely lived past the age of 13 without testing and research on animals? You'd be susceptible to diseases and more that have been all been eradicated. But, and to be a ditz and klutz and go back a point or two, let's go to generational spans. Did you know the average generational span of an American of 25 years, due to women? Do you know it for dogs? Flies? Mice? Any other animal that is tested? Did you know that we can benefit more efficiently and effectively, not to mention quickly, from research on animals that have small generational time lines than humans? It also should be said that there are more test subjects and controlled environments for experiments with animals. I will stop here, not because I feel I will have won anything or persuaded, but it is tiring, this old debate. I love animals. I hate for them to undergo any pain or harmful conditions. But if I see more commercials for animal abuse than child abuse? Rape? It pisses me off. The same goes for here. I would, even if ignorantly, allow an animal to die to save one of my own species. Especially if it was my child. I originally wanted to be a vet. Now I am a pre-med student. Not much different. I still would love to be a vet and take care of animals. But my passion for the lives of humans is greater. So instead of thinking how cruel it is that people use animals for medical and scientific research, think about how more cruel (to you) it'd be if they hadn't. You'd not be alive right now. The advances we made to allow you to live were based off, but not solely, animals. (P.S. I am a vegetarian. Wanna guess why?) Final statement: The 3 Rs. Read up. Google is your friend.

negative: Resolved:The US should allow animal testing...If its for scientific reasons only My opponent has forfeited the round. If he comes back this next one, I would like it if he responded to my argument. In regards to the comment about what would be non-scientific testing, I believe I can answer that. There is no such thing as non-scientific as technically everything can be said to be "scientific". However, if we're talking about knowledge beneficial to humanity, then I personally consider cosmetic testing to be non-scientific.

negative: Animal testing should be banned First of all, I would like to state that I am new to this site. I extend my thanks to Daniyar for putting forward this stimulating topic, and accepting my input on the debate of this issue. I would also like to ask the community at large for leniency in view of my relative inexperience! As Daniyar says, this is both a contentious topic and there are few easy answers as to the right and wrong of it. I would first contend that to argue that a specific mode of research has previously provided vital and valuable information is meaningless in the context that most of this research has been undertaken with no other methodology available. Studies can be undertaken upon human cell cultures and engineered tissues, often at less cost than testing on animals. A company by the name of Pharmagene Laboratories in the UK utilises only tissue cultures and computer modelling in it's drug development and testing. (http://www.newscientist.com....) I put forth the argument that historically, animal testing was essential due to the lack of viable alternatives; the existence of this company shows that this is now no longer the case. Whether or not this is enough as a method to review a drug's effects on the entire system remains contested by those in favour of medical testing. The UK authorities and relevant boards however accept that this company meets stringent criteria for test safety. In short - I can be grateful to the animal tests of the past for the drugs they have provided us, without seeing a need for animal tests in the future. The next point would be to discuss the failures of animal testing. Animal physiology is not human physiology. The trial of TGN1412, an experimental drug intended to suppress immune system response, is a clear case in point. Despite extensive animal testing, the agent turned out to have an adverse and indeed almost lethal effect on humans (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Aidsvax failed to protect human test volunteers, despite protecting chimpanzees (http://www.safermedicines.org...). It has long been stated that animal testing can certainly be downright contradictory in the results it provides, as well as merely misleading. (Indeed, the previously referenced article highlights the uncertainty amongst UK medical professionals that animal testing indeed has clinical relevance). In Dr. Andrew Knight's 'The Costs And Benefits of Animal Experiments' it is stated that in a study of twenty randomly chosen cases, only two proved useful in further developing medicines and/or consistent with clinical trial data. Several additional reviews illustrated cases where adverse effects failed to predict negative effects through animal testing methods. (http://www.newint.org...) Then we may consider cost. The cost to rear, feed and maintain animal subjects is extremely high, as stated even by proponents of animal testing (http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...). Alternative methods are cheaper and thus less burdensome on the economy. In societies where governmental funding is provided for medical research, there is a corresponding lessened burden on the taxpayer. The ethical debate is also of primary concern here. No one would put forward the idea that testing on humans in the same manner would be acceptable. Yet animals evince 'intelligence' and quite certainly feel. Scientists have considered it possible to develop a universal intelligence test which animals could take (http://www.newscientist.com...) and have variously noted that even molluscs show signs of consciousness (New Scientist, 11th June 2011, p38 'A beautiful mind') and that signs of intelligence and indeed emotion are not wanting from animals (New Scientist, 2nd July 2011, p41 'Claws for Thought'). If someone were to put to me that a small number of humans should be experimented on for research purposes for 'the greater good', I would be adamant in my objection to the idea. The same argument still applies when referring to animals. Of course, I put my species and self-aware consciousness first. If there was a greater good to be achieved by harming animals , if animal research provided a humanitarian benefit, I would support it wholeheartedly. However, my previous arguments indicate that continued animal research is prolonging unnecessary suffering. It goes without saying that cosmetic testing on animals is completely abhorrent and unnecessary. The argument can be put forward for consideration that a great deal of continued experimentation exists because the structure of scientific society, even within ethical boards, is geared toward a psychological comfort with retaining familiar tests, rather than out of strict necessity. It can also be put forward that such experimentation continues because the traditional methods provide psychological comfort to scientists with an emotional investment in them, namely the avoidance of any discomfort they might feel if they were forced to concede that they had participated in acts of needless harm. These arguments are of course not possible to prove, but I feel they are nonetheless worth offering up for consideration. In UK law comprehensive regulations already limit the extent of permissible animal testing allowed in the laboratory, and is not acceptable unless it is believed that no other means of validating an experiment are available. In short, animal testing is already being phased out. It is my belief that as familiarity with new technologies increases and emotional attachments to animal testing falter, what would amount in practice to a ban would result in any case. Discussions of whether or not a complete, immediate ban is practical, I put it to the reader, are based on individual economic concerns with regards to jobs, as opposed to wider socio-economic concerns or research necessity. I conclude by reiterating my arguments as follows. Firstly, to congratulate animal testing on it's previous successes and therefore conclude that it is essential now is a failure of logic. Second, there exist viable alternatives to animal testing such that it is no longer a necessity for a commercial company to satisfy safety testing requirements. Third, the usefulness of testing with regards to the differences in animal and human physiology is in question amongst a large number of practicing medical professionals, and systemic investigations of such trials have shown that animal tests can be misleading and often do not go on to provide the same results in humans at clinical trial. Some indeed have proven harmful. Fourth, the ethics of testing on animals when they can be shown to have intelligence and awareness, if not equal to that of humans, is highly questionable when alternate methods exist. Fifth, there are arguments to be made as to the reasons for scientific 'clinginess' over animal testing in both review boards and the scientists offering up proposals for review. Finally, an immediate ban would not necessarily have a far-reaching negative impact in an economic sense, given the astronomical costs of animal testing as a whole. I respectfully submit these points for perusal, and await the response with interest.

negative: Animal Testing is Inhumane and should be illegal Firstly, I'd like to ask my opponent a question for clarification of this debate's rules and parameters.To my opponent: Being that it is that the rules dictate a correct use of conventional grammar and spelling, is it out of bounds for me to point out grammatical and spelling errors made? I'm typically not very strict as long as the point is made, but the rules seem to obligate that I point them out. Is it optional? Is it mandatory? Is it advised against? I'd like to be clear on how we're dealing with that. That's all. /opponentSociety's Sympathizations to Species Sans-HumanIt's pretty obvious that animals deserve our attention if anyone deserves our attention. Animals often surpass humans in many areas of intelligence, strength, and speed, and have more practical use in our society than what they're used as today (tortured, eaten, and all that other stuff that my opponent will most surely mention).Of course, the body of scientific knowledge that led up to this is exactly that: Scientific knowledge. Knowledge deduced, induced, and abduced through scientific rigor. We know what we know of animals through research, experimentation, and testing.Testing is vital to our understanding of the natural world. We test several phenomena under specific circumstances to understand them. That's simply what it is. We test on humans all the time, and are doing so right now, why should animals be any different or "special?" We could treat animals differently from us in terms of ethics and such, but that doesn't ensure that that treatment would be humane. So, just as we test humans with science, we should treat animals with the same rigor.The only problem I can see is the lack of consent. They're born, and they're tested. However, if the standard of living is sufficient for those tested, I don't see the problem. Consent is not necessary for humans when they are born into a government in which the standard of living is sufficient. Born into a nation with sufficient resources to feed and nurture everyone, is one not a citizen until they have the age to give consent for such things? In the same sense, do we have to condition an animal to learn between two choices so that they understand to give consent every time? We have the ability to do that, but it would be inefficient and unnecessary.That is my argument for why animal testing is vital and should not be illegal.With my arguments made, I'd like to rebut my opponent with the remainder of this round.Obligatorily Opposing My Opponent's ObligingsMy opponent's first point is that animals feel pain. My opponent states that when we test animals, the procedure involves sticking chemicals down their eyes, as an example of testing being inhumane.There is absolutely no evidence that this is part of any standard procedure in typical animal testing. My opponent cites no sources, despite dictating in the rules of this argument that that is a necessity. So far, my opponent has broken the majority of the rules set by their own self.The claim that this is something that's done to ensure that their capacity in pain is sufficient for testing is a rather big claim, so I don't understand why my opponent would breeze right past it without properly giving a source.The next point my opponent makes is that people in jail make stronger candidates for testing.In case my opponent actually means jail instead of prison, I'm going to make an argument against that. What!? Being in jail does not strip you of all citizen and consensual rights! That's not how jail works!In the case that my opponent did misspell/miscommunicate what was meant to be communicated, it's worth noting that experiments were done on prisoners for a very long time. The protection of prisoners was heightened recently due to abuse of scientific conduct. I don't see it as being a dilemma, an ultimatum between animals and prisoners. They're all worth testing. Disqualifying a batch is unfortunate, but we've still got batches aplenty.To my opponent: Of utmost urgency, I'd like you to address the following points first: Clarification of the rules; How animal testing is inherently inhumane. The rest can be replied and rebutted to in your own time and pace. Thank you. /opponent

negative: Animal Testing Con: Animal Rights By many accounts, animal testing often means that that animals are not treated humanely. According to Santa Clara University, approximately 8 million animals are exposed to painful testing procedures, and at least 10 percent of these do not receive painkillers. Many people believe it is unjust to sacrifice one species for the benefit of another, and that animal cruelty is never justified, regardless of the benefits that come from it. Some feel that it does not follow that a human --- Earth's most highly developed animal --- is considered more valuable than any other animal. Even when animals are not killed or harmed during experimentation, they are often subjected to great deals of stress. Some animal advocates believe that the animal's experience of stress could actually influence an experiment, making the results unusable. Con: Expense Animal testing is notoriously expensive, and also very time-consuming. According to Care2, scientific professionals in the U.S. have used approximately $20 million in taxpayer money on animal experiments that are deemed "arbitrary and pointless." Animal testing in general costs more than non-animal testing, since it requires additional lab equipment, such as animal food, cages and needles, and usually takes a lot more time. Animal activists argue that many animals experiments aren't necessary in the first place --- like testing cocaine on monkeys --- and don't contribute vital information to the scientific community. Con: Necessity Individuals in the scientific and animal rights community alike maintain that most experiments leading to life-saving scientific breakthroughs could have been done just as easily without using animals. Some scientists even believe that non-animal testing produces more accurate results than animal testing. Advances in stem cell research, for example, may well render animal testing pointless in the future. In addition, according to Living Cruelty Free, the safety of a product or procedure on an animal does not always translate over to human safety, due to "interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry." Lots of experiments performed using cosmetics and other household items are not necessary, because many popular companies do not test on animals. These companies are labeled "cruelty-free" by PETA.1. Animals are killed or kept in captivity: In animal testing, countless animals are experimented on and then killed after their use. Others are injured and will still live the remainder of their lives in captivity. Function Animal testing is used to see how a product could possible effect humans, animals and the environment. The different demands for animal testing come from the medical field, household products, agricultural chemicals, industrial chemicals, pesticides, paint, food additives and beauty products. Types There are three general types of animal testing. Product testing is the testing of products such as soaps, cosmetics, household cleaners and pesticides on animals to ensure they are safe for human use. Research uses the testing of drugs and medical procedures on animals. Education and training uses animals to teach anatomy and to train medical students I have not seen any information for preserving animal testing plus Wikipedia literally anyone can put something on Wikipedia and it could be wrong

negative: Animal Testing Should be Banned With that being said, I believe the fundamental nature of animal testing is acceptable. To begin, your original premise posits that animal testing is fundamentally immoral because we have not been given consent by said animals to be used. As of yet, there seems to be no way of obtaining consent from a plethora of animals. While it is true that we can observe and predict the behaviors and reactions of certain animals and species different than us (for example, we can generally tell when animals are happy/sad/angry etc. ), this premise relies on the notion that all animals are able to give consent. However, while we do have swaths of knowledge about animal behavior available to us, we have yet to encounter animals with the complicated executive capabilities of humans, so comparing humans to all other animals can't possibly be a fair comparison because humans are unlike all other animals in a variety of quantifiable ways. For example, out of all of the animals studied and observed by humans, it is extremely rare to establish that other animals have theory of mind, the ability to complexly understand the emotions, desires, actions, etc. of themselves and others around them. Even in animals that have the potential to develop theory of mind, it is often at rudimentary levels and often disputed by other researchers regarding the significance of the study's findings. Another reason animal testing isn't inherently immoral is because any alternative would stunt the progress and development of new medicines, treatments, vaccinations, etc. For example, banning animal testing would either 1) extend to all humans, because, as you suggested, they're animals too or 2) not place restrictions on human testing. In the case of the second instance, you must then concede that humans are uniquely distinct from other animals, in which case we are back to the first point I suggested. Animal testing has helped to accelerate medical and scientific advents for both domesticated pets and for humans. Leapfrogging off of my previous point, if you extend a ban on animal testing, you must then establish if it is ethical to do social experiments or milder forms of testing on those same animals. If your response is no, then we are stuck in the situation I previously described in which you must subjectively arbitrate which procedures and which animals are acceptable to test. If your answer is none of them, then the result of that policy would be a cessation of the mounds of scientific value obtained from testing on animals, even as simple as social and behavioral experiments. Overall, I believe animal testing is not only ethical, but ought to be encouraged for the purposes of scientific and medical advents and because, as I pointed out earlier, any concrete restrictions placed on animal testing will lead to a slippery slope that is inevitably invalidated.

negative: Should animal testing be banned "Why is an animal's life more valuable than a human's life?" I'm going to work under the assumption you meant to ask "Why is a human's life more valuable than an animal's?" The truth?... it depends on whose perspective you look at this question from. A human's life is more valuable than an animal's (in general) because I am a human. I want to ensure the survival of my species first and foremost above all other species. However, If you could speak with a lion and asked it whose life it valued more, a fellow lion or the human, it would say the lion. We can assume this to be true because if it came down to a matter of life and death a lion would kill a human to feed it's family in order to ensure the survival of it's species. I often liken argument of animal testing to hunting. You say that animal testing puts the life of the animals in danger and that it is cruel towards the animals. That it utterly true and undeniable. But I would ask you, how is the cruelty animals face from being used in research worse or different than the cruelty and suffering an animal faces at the moment it's life is being extinguished by a hunter, whether that hunter be man or another animal? The truth of the situation is that most animals that are used for scientific research are bred into existence for the sole purpose of being used in research, and for the majority of the time that animal is alive it is treated just like any other pet or animal in a zoo. In round 1 you base your argument off the statement "If you were asked to go and eat a thought-to-be-poisonous berry, would you say yes, even though you probably would die. That is why animal testing should be banned". This shows a misinterpretation of the core fundamentals of science. In addition the statement makes the assumption that researches do not understand the gravity of using live animals in their scientific research, and it's down right insulting. A statement that would more accurately represent what scientists are trying to do would read as "Ok, we are almost certain this berry won't be dangerous to people but we cannot be certain. We need this berry to feed thousands of starving people that would otherwise die without it. Before we feed this berry to those thousands of people and possibly end uo killing them further lets see if other animals can eat it without dying, just to be sure its safe. Ok, all the animals that ate the berry didn't seem to have any negative reaction to it. Now we're almost certain it is safe to feed to those starving people but we are still crossing our fingers that it is safe for people too and it will indeed save the lives of those starving people that eat it". It's a common misconception that scientists do not have respect for the animals they test on, and that most animals involved in research die as a result of the experiment. It is quite the opposite. Animal's are only used in research as a last resort for the final step of the research to ensure a medical procedure or drug is as safe as possible for people. Like you say, other technology is used in research, but that only gets you so far. If we tried to apply medical technologies to people before it went through the process of animal testing, many people would be suffering instead of animals and the advancement of medical technologies would be almost non-existent. We are decades, if not centuries away from being able to develop medical technologies without the use of animal models. I know this because I am around this culture everyday. The hard truth that you and other people against animal testing must face is that without it we would not have modern medicine. Everything from surgery techniques to the vaccine for polio was only made possible with the use of animals in research. Without testing on animals large groups of the human population would be susceptible to being wiped out by disease. Furthermore, as technology is refined the suffering animals face in research is minimized and there is a great effort in the scientific community to ensure animals used in research suffer the least amount possible in the duration of their life. I link the argument back to life and death because even though you do not see it, the majority of research that uses animals to test on is a matter of life and death for the individual human and for our species. Although I am not religious I understand the statement that "god gave man dominion over the animal kingdom". Instead of suggesting animal testing should be banned, it would be a better effort to minimize the necessity of using animals in research and minimize the animals suffering in that research and this is an effort pushed strongest by the scientific community. Instead of thinking of animal testing as subjecting animals to pointless cruelty in testing we should think of the great sacrifice these animals make for humanity. In reality it is quite noble.

negative: The Use of Animals within Scientific Research The use of technology does not think like a human. I understand the advancement of technology and volunteered cadavers, but what about studies that involves the specimen to be alive? In psychology, many case studies involve the naturalistic studying of animals, others they are being tested on so they can be compared to the human body and mind. Technology cannot provide that kind of information for us. I do not necessarily believe in the potential harming such as the testing of make up on animals, but research for the mind and behavior should not be ruled out with the rest of the potentially harmful studies.

negative: Animal Testing should be allowed For your arguments. Now I will try best to counter it. " A good deal of people would say that so many animals are being killed in animal research but it isn't realised that animals are used in the food industry as well. " Well, As my worthy opponent says that a good deal of animals are used in the food industry, Pro, fails to realise that food industry is a high breeding industry too and no harm to the subsistence of animals is done in this industry. Does it mean that people are killing plants ruthlessly and causing extinction of wheat and rice plants? No. That is called agriculture and rearing animals for commercial purposes is called animal husbandry. (1) (1)en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Animal_husbandryR06; " If we stop animal testing the human race would wipe out; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! " And nothing will happen to the population of the animals? A common example of what animal testing leads to is the situation of the Tokay gecko. (2)(3) (2). http://www.dw.de... (3)www. tokaygeckos. org/tokay-gecko-fact-sheetR06; What happens is that when a species of animal is thought to have some medicinal cures, it is researched upon. slowly, the demand of this species grows and people come to know about it. Frequently, these species are found in areas which are full of poor people. Catching these animals and supplying them to buyers gives a lot of money. So, everyone follows the rule of catching these animals and selling them for money. This happens recklessly and the population of these animals go down in a constant rate leading to their extinction. Tokay Geckos are researched on to find an HIV cure. While Top scientists say that it is in vain. Many have taken this research as a hope to find a cure. .. some for the welfare. .. and some for the money. The greed to earn money is leading to the extinction of beautiful animals. Think about it. If Human beings have fundamental rights, should the animals also not have some basic rights? At Least the right to LIVE? Tiger was first hunted as a game, gradually the GOVT. took steps. Later, they were researched on. GOVT. scientist said that tiger doesn't contain any medicinal factors and research on them was banned but is the tiger safe today? Nope. People who believe that tiger can be used to cure cancer are still researching on them by illegal means. Poachers are still prevalent. Tiger reserves are proving to be useless. The count of tiger in the whole world is >3200! ! In such situations, should animal testing be actually allowed?

negative: Animal rights I will start of by refuting some of the arguments you made 1. "ALL people have emotions for animals" (Once again when I say animals in this debate it does not include humans) Not every human has emotions for animals. Some humans do not even have emotions so your claim is false. Also some normal functioning humans use the desensitization technique towards animals that makes them completely indifferent. You may find that a large portion of society does not actually care about animals, and those that care will abandon their beliefs if it proves to be convenient (this would leave a very small minority of people that cares about animals, most probably they would be stubborn and have low intelligence). 2. "Pets help us live a healthier lifestyle". False by context, you make it seem as if pets add something to your life, they don't they only offer a human being motivation. Motivation is cheep but pets are not, pets are one of the most inefficient ways to keep up moral and fitness, there are various other replacements that are cheeper and take up less time. For example a man may be motivated through running, he will stay in shape and will keep up good moral. A person with a pet will need to do much more to keep up the pet (by walking and caring for it). In the end although the result is the same the efficiency is not of equal gravity man 1 will have gotten more for his time and money. 3. "The food chain would be ruined if one of the carnivores were extinct." You obviously did not read my second last paragraph of my last point. 4. "And again, humans ARE animals so you wouldn't have the right to vote on a debate. How many times do I have to tell you?" By animals I am not referring to humans only every other member of the animal kingdom (how many times must I repeat this). Humans are more evolved in a conscious and intellectual way and thus are complete separate by my standards and all governments standards (so humanities standard). 5. "I want you to search 'animals getting tested on' and take a look at their pictures. Do they look like they were treated fairly to you?", I am for unregulated animal experimentation (yes that includes testing for commercial uses) . I searched what you told me to search and I can honestly say I did not bat an eye, those animal were advancing society in an intellectual and economical way. I am complete for these two things so in reality the photos made me happy. Let me repeat this I do not care for the animal in testing because it can not care for me and it can not benefit humanity in a intellectual manner (and thus benefit us). The amount of pain it feels is even debatable so I don't really care. 6. "stop buying products that have been tested on animals so that the company might shut down", that hurts actual humans, what about the people who work there, do you not care for them. They are doing something legal so why should they suffer, animals are below us we have no legal obligation to them (we have obligations to ecosystems though). I care for humans and what you are saying harms humans. 7. "they all have importance and shouldn't be treated unfairly. All of them help keep the ecosystem alive", your common household cat does not do enough for the ecosystem for it to be considered 'useful'. I do not care how they are treated nail the cat to a door it makes no difference to me. Now on to another one of my points: Animal Testing. Like perviously stated I am for unregulated animal testing, let me elaborate what that means. Unregulated animal testing means that animals can be used as tools in laboratories, the owner can do what ever it likes with them and they can be used for both research and commercial purposes. This will allow the government to drop unwanted 'animal rights' costs and better balance the budget (this is money spent unnecessarily) and it will allow research to flourish. I do not care what circumstances the animal must go through if it is beneficial to the human race (a very broad spectrum) then it fine to do what ever necessary to the animal. If it means the animal must feel exorbitant amounts of pain then it is ok. The animal serves no other purpose to the human race (an animal in a cage in a lab can not benefit the environment) but research. We can not do these things to humans obviously so we need a suitable equivalent. The animal feels pain but not in the way we do so it is not relatable; therefore it is moral to do these experiments. Humans are the supreme species on this planet we must uses our animal cousins to advance ourselves, it is their purpose in our development and it is something that should be unregulated.

negative: The US federal Government should ban ALL testing that requires the use of animals. CON: Intro: Ever since the 17th century, we have been testing products on animals to make sure that they are safe for human use. Animal testing aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible only through animal testing. This includes treatments for HIV"S, Cancer, insulin, antibiotics, and many more. Animal testing has proved itself to work and has saved many human lives already. Scientists use animal testing for one main reason. That is because animals are similar to humans and most cosmetics have the same effect on humans. Because we believe that animal testing is not only great but it is essential to advancing in society, we negate the resolution which states: RESOLVED: The US federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals. CON FRAMEWORK: In this debate, the pro has the burden of proving that ALL animal testing should be banned and that nothing good comes out of it. On the other hand, the con has the privilege of demonstrating that animal testing benefits the humanity and the pros to animal testing outweigh the cons. CONTENTION 1: THE BENEFITS OF ANIMAL TESTING http://www.worldometers.info... According to the University of Oxford, Approximately 3 million human beings are killed each year by general cancer. Leukemia, malaria, and lung cancer are the main contributing factors to another 4 million human deaths. Currently, there are approximately 2.1 million children living with HIV"S in this country alone and over 1,300 deaths from HIV"S a day. Due to animal testing, these numbers are dropping as we speak by at least 70 percent. So what you have to see is that because of animal testing, the human life is being preserved. 6.3 percent of the U.S population suffers from either type 1 or 2 diabetes, that humans aren"t the only ones suffering. Every breed of dogs, cats and other animals also have been diagnosed with diabetes. It is through testing on different breeds of animals that we have been able to come up with a temporary cure for this chronic disease. CONTENTION 2: ALTERNATIVES WON"T PROVIDE ACCURATE RESULTS In order for medical advancements to be made, we need to continue to use animals in testing. Where animals are used in research projects, they are used for a wide range of scientific techniques. Animals are used only for parts of research where there are no other techniques are available and can deliver the same answer. You cannot copy a human on a computer and get the same results. A beating heart or a pulse is irreplaceable and complex. While we already know a lot about how it works, there is an enormous spectrum we have yet to discover. A computer hasn"t been invented that has the power to reproduce all the complexities of a human body which cannot be created in a test tube. While humans are used extensively in Oxford research, there are some things which it is ethically unacceptable to use humans for. There are also variables which you can control in a mouse like diet, housing, clean air, humidity, temperature, and genetic makeup that you could not control in human subjects. What we are basically saying in this contention is that even though there are alternatives, they won"t produce the same results that a real patient would. CONTENTION 3: THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS THE USE OF MEDICAL TESTING ON ANIMALS SO LONG AS THERE ARE REASONABLE LIMITS Simon Festing [Executive Director of the Research Defense Society, London] and Robin Wilkinson [Science Communications Officer at the Research Defense Society, London], "The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research," EMBO Reports, Volume 8(6), pp. 526-530. URL= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... Thanks to some extensive opinion polls by MORI (1999a, 2002, 2005), and subsequent polls by YouGov (2006) and ICM (2006), we now have a good understanding of the public's attitudes towards animal research. Although society views animal research as an ethical dilemma, polls show that a high proportion"84% in 1999, 90% in 2002 and 89% in 2005"is ready to accept the use of animals in medical research if the research is for serious medical purposes, suffering is minimized and/or alternatives are fully considered. When asked which factors should be taken into account in the regulatory system, people chose those that"unknown to them"are already part of the UK legislation. In general, they feel that animal welfare should be weighed against health benefits, that cosmetic-testing should not be allowed, that there should be supervision to ensure high standards of welfare, that animals should be used only if there is no alternative, and that spot-checks should be carried out. It is clear that the UK public would widely support the existing regulatory system if they knew more about it. What this means is that the public is fine with animal testing. A minimum of 84 % support it as long as we consider alternatives and that it is completely necessary. I love debating and look forward to their response.

negative: Animal research is extremely tightly regulated by independent authorities Independent enquiries!? There's too much money at stake for an enquiry to be independent. About as independent as the enquiry into the Saudi/BAe corruption scandal. Those who regulate vivisection are few and overworked. That is if they have not already been corrupted - as is the case in the US with the FDA and other regulatory bodies. With the millions spent on lobbying governments this situation is unlikely to change soon. £11 million was enough to buy the British Government. Are we supposed to applaud that most research is done on rodents? They feel pain and fear just as much as humans. -------------- Animal-experiments have never been scientifically evaluated: The Toxicology Working Group of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures in 2002 recommended that "the reliability and relevance of all existing animal tests should be reviewed as a matter of urgency." The recently published Nuffield Council report on animal experiments recommended: "At present, there is a relatively limited number of useful systematic reviews and meta-reviews that address the question of the scientific validity of animal experiments and tests. In principle, it would therefore be desirable to undertake further systematic reviews and meta-analyses to evaluate more fully the predictability and transferability of animal models" This Government came to power promising a Royal Commission on animal experimentation. Yet Home Office Minister Caroline Flint stated in 2004 that the Government "has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments and has no plans to do so."

negative: animal rights Sorry it took so long i can only be on computer one hr a day! ==pro== ===Animal testing=== Every year, millions of animals suffer and die in painful tests to determine the safety of cosmetics and other products. Substances such as eye shadow and soap are tested on rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, dogs, and other animals, despite the fact that the test results don't help prevent or treat human illness or injury. People often fail to give animals the respect and rights they deserve, they are treated as lifeless, unfeeling scientific creatures, that we discard at our own convenience. Some of these animals come from animal shelters and others even worse, some have been stolen directly from their own front yard. Imagine your pet one day being crammed into a cage with ten other animals waiting to die for numerous unreliable tests. People look at these animals being tested on as their own. They will realize how horrible it must be if it was there own pet. We are constantly hearing on the news and other programs about people going to jail or of people having there animals taken from them and being fined because they haven't been feeding them or looking after them. We know these things are illegal. So why do scientists get away with what they are doing and these things are not accidental and they are definitely cruel and even barbaric so why do they get away with this? The list of alternatives can go on forever, so why must all these defenseless animals go on suffering. It is almost the end of the 20th century, we had some many scientific advancements are we not past animal testing. People need to stop turning the other shoulder when it comes to animal testing. It is a real issue and also a real problem at hand. The problem that we are faced with is not a difficult one to fix. The technology is available for us to use and we should take advantage of our advanced alternate methods. Their eyes are sometimes surgically removed; their brains and spinal cords damaged, and their bones broken. Animals are force fed substances through a stomach tube, forced to inhale a substance, or have the substance applied to their rectum or vagina. Cosmetics are not required to be tested on animals and since non-animal alternatives are around, it's hard to understand why some companies still continue to conduct these tests. Cosmetic companies kill millions of animals every year to try to make a profit. It is horrible inaccurate to test the reaction of one species to study another. Why are we testing a substance that might affect apart of animal that is different than ours? Also, why would you want to use a product that at one point in time, might have given animal a disease or a horrible defect? =Animals should have rights= Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth – a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy – it is a social movement that challenges society's traditional view that all non-human animals exist solely for human use. As PETA's managing director, Ingrid E. Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife". Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it's based on race, gender, sexual orientation or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable. If you wouldn't eat a dog, why eat a pig? Dogs and pigs have the same capacity to feel pain, but it is prejudice based on species that allows us to think of one animal as a companion and the other as dinner.

negative: Animal tests too infrequently lead to scientific advancements While it is undeniable that scientific advancements have been made on account of animal experimentation, these advancements have been too rare to justify animal testing. The basic problem is that there is never any guarantee that any instance of animal testing will lead to any advancement in science. There is always a significant risk that an entire line of study that involves killing thousands of animals will lead to no substantive scientific benefits. This makes it highly inconsistent that the ethical trade-off is "worth it", if it ever is. This inconsistency means that a large portion of tested animals will not meet the ethical criteria of being "worth it", and could thus be called ethically wrong.