Debating on Animal Experimentation

[Sweet Neko]

Ok so I just did this debate at school on Animal Experimentation. My team was agreeing to animal Experimentation, and the adjudicators were stdents in my year (year 8)

So the topic Animal Experimentation... well if your against it, you've ot plenty of people to back you up. But the problem with My Debate was that the adjudicators were against Animal Experimentation. So they chose the Negative side to win

So my point in this topic is that if you were adjudicator, would you let your personal feelings into the topic?

[Mika:.]

It's something that isn't easy to do if you are passionate about the topic.

Of course I would try not to be biased towards the argument I personally agree with. I'd focus on the validity of their points and the way these points are articulated. I think it's possible to be fair, although it wouldn't be easy for most.

There's always the chance that the other team won because it was considerably easier for them to argue for the side apparently everyone's on.

[lotusSan]

I recently read articles on animal testing for my life science class and had a discussion in class about it. True, it is sad that animals have to suffer because of us, but the question we should ask is would you rather see yourself or a close one suffer that pain? A good sign is that the number of animals used for animal testing has been steadily declining throughout the years due to education and the growing sympathy toward animals. In addition, strict regulatons have been imposed. In recent years, several experimental alternatives have developed, and that appears to be more successful and reliable than animal testing.

Well, if you're interested in reading some articles on it...you can pm me.

[Rurouni[X]]

Animal Testing.
You will find ALOT of people in the world that is against it.
I would have to say i AM against it. Also being a bit cruel i would ALSO like to say..
Better them then me..
I mean Mouse dont really feel anything. Its proven that Animals dont know what they are feeling. They know Pain yes'
They know to fear it. But do they know what it really is? Or do they just know that it is uncomfortable.
I guess Animal testing is jusdified from that fact that what else would you test it on? Im sure scientists at one point smeared Makeup on a plastic dummy.. But it didnt really end up that well.
And im sure soem scientists tried giving a tree a pill.. Needless to say it didnt do much.. and the Guinea Pigs laughed at them and felt indiginant..
^^"
o.O?
(Shrugz)
haha.. weird mood la..
anywayz i dont think its incredabily bad. I mean its bad and all.
But im not gonna loose any sleep over it
^^"

[KendoTiger]

']And im sure soem scientists tried giving a tree a pill.. Needless to say it didnt do much.. and the Guinea Pigs laughed at them and felt indiginant..



Keke

Yeah, as mean as it sounds, I would prefer an animal to suffer over a human. I mean, it would be great if none had to suffer, but I would rather a rat get a rash from some makeup than a person.

[wanie_jay]

erm...since i'm in the science field, so, i felt like i have this huge responsibilities to elaborate on this matter.

animal experimentation is not bad, it's unavoidable, mainly because b4 you can start selling some drugs to human, you need to test it first. just imagine how chaotic it would be if the scientist use human as their subjects?

animals are the next closest species to human, so, experiment is necessary.

but, i'm totally against those who used animals fur or skin, or anything related to animals as an accessories or as food...

[sundae]

well i am against animal testing for products such as makeup and perfume and the cosmetics department in general, where animals are locked up in tiny cages and are forced to suffer horrible deaths. in fact i'm a (kinda inactive lol) member of peta (people for the ethical treatment of animals), where i sign petitions and stuff to help the cause.

however testing on animals for the name of science, for liek finding a cure for say cancer i have a completley different opinion,. like the work these scientists do could change the world forever, a cure for cancer is like , i cna't even describe what the world would be like if they could cure cancer, aids, and all those other uncurable disesases that millions of people live with and die because of each year. like the idea of an aniaml suffering still breaks my heart, but if it can potentially save millions of lives, then i don't have a real problem with it

[Jay'sGF_Kristy]

i am againest with anything to do with animals....animals have nervous system how would YOU feel if someone start doing all these stupid test on you??? i mean it HURTS doesn't it???? some one peeling of skin off you, injecting needles into you... ruining ur immune system... animals can't talk they cannot resist our torture..therefore they have to endure this with pain... i am angry just at the thought of it... look around at the animals around us??? those poor animal being tested on...arrrh i am gonna scream... i must join some knid of protest but i don't know how!!!!! can someone tell me how????

[zhoudaoyan]

haha we were discussing this in one of my religious ed. classes in school the otherday. Animal Experimentation.
I think it's wrong.. but only to a certain extent.
if you think about it... if they didn't experiment on animals. they would have to experiment on humans. and depends on your own opinion but most people think that humans are more important so ..

[xsnow0yinx]

Well, I'm sitting on the fence for this discussion. How so?

Animals are a form of life too. They too have their rights. And they do have feelings too. It's jsut not right to do all these drug testing on them and let them suffer the consequences.

On the other hand, would u rather let the people test the drugs on Man and Man being the ones to suffer and die cos of the side effects of the medicine?

[lattae]

Sometimes its not even the "testing" phrase that's cruel. My friend works with rats for her research on diabetic treatment, and basically in her research process, she will subject the rats to stimulants that will cause them to be incessantly hungry, then she feeds them terribly unhealthy foodmix to induce diabetes. By then, the rat would have been obscenely overweight and suffer from various organ failures. Only those that "survive" the ordeal with diabetes are chosen for the testing phase.

The thing is, animals are still very unlike us, and it's not a 100% accurate test method. Yet, it's the best we can do. WE can't like mass clone humans to test can we?

Unfortunate as it is, I think its a necessary evil until we can find a better method.

[chewy]

yup...i believed that there should not be any animal experimentation...what makes us human beings more superior than the other animals....haha i believe in karma...what goes round comes round....due to the amount of harm humans r doing to the animals...we r getting it back too these days...

[crazygiggles13]

there are good and bad points to both sides of this argument as many people have said.
i think (as do other people) that i'd rather the tests be run on animals than on human beings. by saying this, i am admitting that i think it is cruel and i am being selfish in that i dont want it tested on me.
it is true that animals, although they are similar to humans, are never exactly the same to humans. also the tests will never be one hundred percent accurate because each human/rat/animal will react differently to certain circumstances.
the only other way is if we test on people on death roll who volunteer, but it is still not very nice.

[Singerchick]

Sometimes its not even the "testing" phrase that's cruel. My friend works with rats for her research on diabetic treatment, and basically in her research process, she will subject the rats to stimulants that will cause them to be incessantly hungry, then she feeds them terribly unhealthy foodmix to induce diabetes. By then, the rat would have been obscenely overweight and suffer from various organ failures. Only those that "survive" the ordeal with diabetes are chosen for the testing phase.

The thing is, animals are still very unlike us, and it's not a 100% accurate test method. Yet, it's the best we can do. WE can't like mass clone humans to test can we?

Unfortunate as it is, I think its a necessary evil until we can find a better method.


Very well said. I agree wholeheartedly.

I don't condone animal testing, but that is the only path I see of now - unless some other method is invented.

I would much rather have animals that have nothing to do with my life suffer than see someone close to me suffer. Sorry, that's the truth.

I sound selfish, but I am human, and as a human I admit I'm a corrupted and twisted creature. I know that being human doesn't make our lives more valuable than that of another animal, but I don't have the moral sanctity to care about other animals when the life of someone I love is at stake.

yup...i believed that there should not be any animal experimentation...what makes us human beings more superior than the other animals....haha i believe in karma...what goes round comes round....due to the amount of harm humans r doing to the animals...we r getting it back too these days...

Yes, but slaughtering animals for food isn't the nicest thing to do either. But that's how the food chain works, we arn't the only animals that kill other animals, though we do a whole lot more damange than all the other animals combined -_-. Anywho, my point is, it is animal instinct to want to survive, and a majority of other animals kill just as blindly for food. Except we are taking it to another level - medical reasons. However, as long as it aids our survival, I think it's basic animal instinct, and if other animals could do it, they probably would.

Now torturing animals for pure entertainment (bull fighting) is a whole different story.

And to make my point clear, I don't support animal testing for cosmetic reasons (I.E Perfume), only for reasons that involve the health of humans.

[KendoTiger]

Anyone see "28 Days Later"?

Stupid peta XD

jk

Didn't I already post on this topic? Meow.

Er, how are cosmetic testing harmful? I mean, besides like, rubbing it in their eyes or something ._.?

[danny24]

ther are programs where you can have doctors test on you for money and they have alterative ways to study medicines and stuff so animal testing is no longer necesary ithink its just evil

[KendoTiger]

Wrong.

Although clinical trials are available on humans, they must first past initial testing by proving to be safe for animals. There are actually multiple steps required before a drug/medicine can be used on humans - most fail in these initial stages and have to go back to formula - costing the company a lot of money. Non-the-less, the biggest problem with these drugs is that they are unsafe for human use: proven by the mortality rate on animals. If they were to test these drugs initially on the poor, then they would be the same as murderers.

[Singerchick]

Anyone see "28 Days Later"?
Stupid peta XD
jk
Didn't I already post on this topic? Meow.
Er, how are cosmetic testing harmful? I mean, besides like, rubbing it in their eyes or something ._.?

^ they have to test for chemical reactions, to see if a certain chemical will cause skin burning, corrosion, rashes, etc etc.

[KendoTiger]

For most chemical reactions, you can figure out the result on paper (ie - harmful or not). *shrugs* maybe if they're lazy?

[Singerchick]

For most chemical reactions, you can figure out the result on paper (ie - harmful or not). *shrugs* maybe if they're lazy?

paper does not have the same properties as skin, or for that matter anything on your face, so it would be pretty futile testing on a piece of paper.

[danny24]

Wrong.
Although clinical trials are available on humans, they must first past initial testing by proving to be safe for animals. There are actually multiple steps required before a drug/medicine can be used on humans - most fail in these initial stages and have to go back to formula - costing the company a lot of money. Non-the-less, the biggest problem with these drugs is that they are unsafe for human use: proven by the mortality rate on animals. If they were to test these drugs initially on the poor, then they would be the same as murderers.

ok you have a good point there thank you for pointing that out im not really informed and probably underqualified for this subject but i think the biggest problem is probably the money the money is whats kosting all those animal their lives probably testing on them is always cheaper than trying to find alternative methods of testing at least thats what i think

[Sugar&Spice]

ok you have a good point there thank you for pointing that out im not really informed and probably underqualified for this subject but i think the biggest problem is probably the money the money is whats kosting all those animal their lives probably testing on them is always cheaper than trying to find alternative methods of testing at least thats what i think

I don't think that you were altogether wrong. There can be other ways to expriment rather then using animals.

Now this is a general statement. I can't stand the thought of people exprimenting on animals. And even after they do all this expimenting on animals. They are still left with a product that causes side affects, many of which can be fatal.

[chinook]

We can't completely do away with animal testing until there is a better method. Even testing on mammalian cells isn't a 100% perfect technique coz sometimes you need to see how a drug would react in vivo. On the other hand, the results of animal testing may not always be right coz a drug may react differently in humans and animals. However, if testing of a drug goes wrong in human clinical trials, the consequences can be huge.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11839019/

A case of a clinical trial gone wrong.

To answer your question (if you were adjudicator, would you let your personal feelings into the topic?), one would have to be impartial and this applies to any debate topic, not just animal experimentation. So, I don't know if your adjudicators were truly siding what they believed in, or they felt that the opposition team was the better team. I wouldn't know, I wasn't there. :)

[immaperson]

I did that same debate in my class a couple of years ago as well. I was on the pro side for animal experimentation.
I'm actually for animal experimentation, as long as it does not involve pain research. Excluding normal discomfort in testing, I'm against pain research of any kind. There are many ethicial regulations regarding animal testing, so it's not as if this subject is approached blindly.
There are even stricter rules imposed upon human testing and so many varibles that it's much more easier and effective to test on animals at this point. Small rodents are much more easier to control.

However, if i were an adjudicator, i would pick the side that has the most evdience. I'm not going to go for the pro side just because of my beliefs. Since this is a practice debate - the adjudicators should choose the side with the most compelling support.

[jct8]

I think animal experimentation should only be done on necessary research fields - such as medication, diseases, viruses. It would cause a lot more problems if these experiments were done on humans. As long as we don't abuse the animals.

[Kristy888]

i actually remember having a huge debate about this topic in school as well -its a topic that people seem to debate FOREVER..
honestly i think both sides of the argument have equal weighs..
positive side to this: experimenting on animals to create life saving medicine eg. for fighting cancer or AIDs etc.
personal opinion: id prefer to know that the doctors are experimenting on animals than knowing that they are experimenting on people, [i mean who knows..they might of kidnapped some ppl or taken ppl out of prison to experiment ] (i duno bout other countries n governments but nobody knows what the government does behind our backs)
also, its not like they are experimenting on endangered animals, theyre experimenting on (mostly) white rats...i think plus they reproduce pretty quickly..as for whether they feel pain and how cruel it is and everything.. well much of life is cruel anyway..just as well that we are "debating" this topic..its not like anything we say is gona change anything right..the people who are experimenting this stuff is not just going to turn around listen to us and be like "oh .. ok then were gonna stop"

negative side to this:
as i said animals have the right to live their normal life without us being cruel and breeding them simply to experiment upon ..
what i do not support is using animals and experimenting them so that we can have beauty products.. i think that's wrong... not saying that to make life saving drugs and to make beauty products is not just the same thing cos the animals still feel pain and stuff since we're experimenting on them anyway
but i think its more justifiable to say that we are using their life for a more significant purpose- to save a human life not just to make them more beautiful..
then again why do humans think that they are a superior race and have to sacrifice the life of another animal to save itself or its own race...
i suppose you can include "survival of the fitness" into the equation

anyhow, i think if we dont experiment on animals then there is nothing else we can experiment upon.. erm.. unless you really wana consider being experimented upon yourself..

[joce]

actually i'm not really againts animal experimentation. because some parts of my body is sensitive so i should use animal testing product. i know i'm a bit cruel to all the animal that being tested, but what should i do...
although they test only small animal and not the one that big or restricted animal...

[Iceblade24]

Animal experimentation is probably the only way to learn more about biological systems, which in turn can be applied to humans (possibly). This increases our knowledge bank and I am completely for it. Keep in mind, animal experimentation is not always mutilating them, but could also entail modifying certain aspects of their environment, handicapping them at a young age, etc. Yes, certain measures should be done to insure that the animals are not being treated cruely (a very vague word) but this is already established. I can't even imagine a world where all of our understanding of animal behavior would be if animal experimentation were illegal. Also, an animal may actually be better off in captivity than in the wild. For those drugs that could be potentially harmful to humans, better them than us is my thinking. Yeah, there are some people who argue (poorly in my opinion) that every animal has reflective consciousness, but in fact I think that humans are very very distinct. And yeah, it might sound cold, but sometimes risks have to be taken to get anywhere. Think of any other alternative that can be used to get the same results, without involving animals, and you would have a case. As it stands, it is impossible to advance without animal testing.

Point still stands that humans are pretty much distinct from every other animal out there--a topic for an entirely different thread.