Hello today I debate against my opponent that animal testing is needed in today’s society.
With our growing population, and how today’s technology is growing we need animal testing because it is the most accurate?
Although there are alternatives to animal testing like cell culture. There are still some kinds of test that will need animal testing for.
Although you can argue with using humans such as prisoner, but they still are humans and have their rights as humans.
Although animal testing is more expansive it is needed for the most accurate. Unlike the alternatives which are less accurate then animal testing
Religious traditions allow for human dominion over animals. The Bible states in Genesis 1:26: "And God said... let them
[human beings] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and
over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." [45] The BBC reports that Jewish, Christian, and Muslim teaching allows
for animal experimentation as long as there is no unnecessary pain inflicted and there is a real possibility of benefit to human
beings.
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 parvo virus.
Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and
hip dysplasia. [9, 21] Animal testing has also been instrumental in saving endangered species from extinction, including the
black-footed ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil. [13, 9] Koalas, ravaged by an epidemic of sexually
transmitted chlamydia and now classified as endangered in some regions of Australia, are being tested with new chlamydia
vaccines that may stall the animal's disappearance. [22, 18] The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses
animal testing.
Animal testing plays a pivotal role in medical research and without it, combating critical diseases is futile. Thanks to animal
testing, vaccines have been developed for deadly disease such as Hepatitis B, Herpes Simplex, rabies, Polio, mumps, malaria
92 percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous
or don't work". This is very misleading and it doesn't prove anything. We use animal testing to find the drugs potentially
dangerous to human. Those that pass the test are not automatically safe but they are less likely to be dangerous than the ones that
were discarded thanks to the test. Let's imagine something like this: 1000 drugs need to go through two tests. 900 fail the first test
and only 100 are allowed to take the second test, then 92 fail and only 8 pass. So 92% of the drugs which pass the first test fail
the second test. Does it mean the first test is useless? Obviously not.
The fact is animal testing has contributed greatly to the medical progress. It helps us in our fight against cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart
disease, diabetes, Parkinson"s disease, birth defects
This argument is very emotion-based. The fact is we should and we must put our own benefit over other species. Animals are
killed in order to make drugs for human. So what? Animals are also killed to be consumed by human. What is wrong with
that? Human right is above animal right. Pro talks about the animal’s pain ,but how about the pain of the people tormented by
diseases? If animal testing helps saving human lives then there is no reason to stop it.
There are alternatives but, the alternatives to animal testing are even more unreliable. I would like Pro to elaborate about "other
methods which are far more effective and reliable than animal testing". The scanning technology only helps us to find the cure,
but after we make the cure we still need to test it. So it is not an alternative. Regarding the skin model, the original quote from
Pro's source is "Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm" test, which has been accepted almost
universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits." [2] It is the replacement for specific studies, how can it
replace testing drugs in animals?
So my question to you after hearing all the facts is why we need to ban animal testing.
I close my side of this argument with a question. If you think animal testing is so bad then think if we never did. We would still
living in fear of getting small pox or other dangerous viruses.