Debate on AT

Opening remark- Affirmative
Ladies and gentlemen did you know that in one year millions of animals die from animal testing’s. Out of those millions, 65,000 are dogs. All these animals die in distress, and not only distress but they also die suffering. Most of what the animals experience is torture; this leads to the animals suffering until they die. Animal testing’s on animals should clearly be banned. First of all, it’s unethical. Unethical means that people are doing things that most people think is wrong to do, that a normal moral person would think wrong to do. Secondly it’s teaching school kids that it’s ok to test on animals if it enhances education, but hurting an innocent animal is wrong. Education should foster compassion and respect for life. It has also been noted that children who treat animals with violence could unconsciously start to be violent towards humans too. Thirdly, enough testing’s have been done in the past that we can use that information for future references. Also instead of animal testing’s helping humans, more and more professionals think that animal testing might be delaying the development, because it could provide inaccurate and mistaken information. And don’t forget that human beings and animals are physically different, and could react differently towards medicine since they have different metabolisms. In some countries many scientist and doctors are starting to act against animal testing. So is it really worth making the innocent animals suffer? Imagine if it was your pet suffering.

http://www.java-animal.org/eng/Summary2.html



Second speaker for affirmative side
(Summarizes argument presented so far for BOTH sides, and tries to explain superior of their own side. Must answer any questions raised but the negative side. Finally, should present the strongest point for the affirmative with appropriate supporting evidence.)

We are on the affirmative side, meaning that we think that animal testing should be banned. So, as we said before animal testing is wrong for many different reasons. When you said….

Might say: It enhances education
It’s wrong to take away a life, its teaching kids that it is ok to kill an animal for the good of education, but it’s not right to hurt an innocent animal just to see what happens. Like I said before that most children who treat animals with violence could unconsciously start to be violent towards humans too.

Might say: It is necessary to human life
Human beings and animals are physically different; they react differently to the drugs because of their metabolism. So a drug that works on humans might not necessarily work on humans. Although the animals may be of the same species, the data obtained by animal testing may differ by 10 times depending on the type of lifestyle, and environment they are in. Also instead of animal testing’s helping humans, more and more professionals think that animal testing might be delaying the development, because it could provide inaccurate and mistaken information. So instead of animal testing really helping humans, it’s causing the process to be longer. Also in the process of saving one human life, you may be killing a hundred animals.

Might say: Humans are superior, they have sentient thoughts
But animals still experience pain and fear, and the animals are suffering from the snide-effects of the drugs. And even though we are superior and can make in depth decisions this does not mean that we have the right to mess with their species. Whoever said that we had the right to start testing it on other species? It’s mean and it’s cruel.

Might say: Killing plants is the same as killing animals and that’s still happening
Let me ask you this. Do the trees suffer? Are the trees experimented on? Trees don’t have a memory and don’t feel pain. Even though they are alive, this does not mean that you can compare trees to animals! Also planting trees is a lot easier than reproducing.

Might say: There is no other alternative
In the past there was no other alternative, but today we have made enough tests and research for future references. And, like I said before, humans and animals react differently to the drugs.

….These are some reasons that I think are reasonable to why animal testing should be banned.



Closing statement- affirmative side
So, as we said before animal testing is wrong for many different reasons. Some of the reasons we pointed out before were: it’s unethical making animals suffer with the side-effects; its teaching school kids that it’s ok to do tests on animals if it enhances education, but we have no right making an animal suffer just to see what happens. Education should foster respect for life. It is necessary for human life, but since animals and humans may experience the drugs differently, it may not necessarily work on humans. Making humans suffer too, since it prolongs the research. And finally it is not the only alternative. Many tests have been done in the past, and with that data we can use it for future references. So we don’t have to keep testing to see if they work on animals. We already know if a drug works or not. So we overall think that animal testing should be banned. Thank you.






Second speaker for Negative side
(Summarizes argument presented so far for BOTH sides, and tries to explain superior of their own side. Must answer any questions raised but the negative side. Finally, should present the strongest point for the affirmative with appropriate supporting evidence.)


We are on negative side, meaning that we think that animal testing should not be banned. So, as we said before animal testing brings positive reactions for many different reasons. When you said….

Might say: The animal may in the long run be extinct
This can’t happen because rodents can breed year-round and usually have up to 50 babies at a time. Also scientists won’t experiment on soon to be extinct animals, and nowadays only the necessary amount of animals should be used. Animal testing has been going on for a long time, and they aren’t extinct yet. Not even close.

Might say: The animal feels pain
But nowadays the pain or distress that the animals experience is minimized. And they won’t remember the pain, so they won’t suffer from remembering how it felt like when it hurt. They only feel what’s happening at the time.

Might say: You’re taking away an innocent life
But rodents life expectancies are about 3-5 years, and the animals are contributing to humans, who can live up to 80-90 years! So even though we are taking away an innocent life, we are saving many more innocent lives in the long run. With the right cure it could end or prevent a lot of diseases and a lot of suffering.

Might say: The animals suffer a lot
Or It’s not necessary for human life
Let me ask you this, would it be better that humans suffer? Without animal testing research on medicine cures could be pro-longed. Patience’s and their families will suffer even more from waiting for the cure. The patience might even die. And if the patience does die, it is making more humans suffer for their loss. When animals die in testing’s, no one suffers from their death except the animals themselves.

Might say: Humans aren’t superior
Yes humans are superior, we have the ability to make in depth decisions, have long term feelings and have sentient thoughts, which is like life long memories. We aren’t dependant on animals, they are dependent on us. Where would the rodents get their food if it weren’t for us? All in all, humans are superior to animals.

Might say: Killing animals isn’t ethical
But if killing animals isn’t ethical then cutting down trees isn’t ethical either. (?)

Might say: Education isn’t a reason
But if we are the only species with sentient thoughts, and want to save lives, then why not move forward in life?

Might say: Animal life = Human life
Rodents have a shorter and less productive life; they can live up to 3-5 years, can breed all year long and produce up to 50 babies at a time. Compared to a human life who can live up to 80-90 years, has the opportunity to do something productive, can’t reproduce all the time, and usually have only one baby at a time. Why shouldn’t we test on animals? An animal life does not equal a human life, it’s not even close.

Might say: There are other alternative
New diseases are developing all the time, and even though we have data from the past, we still have to see if the new medicines work, or if combining two different medicines will work. If we don’t test on animals, the research will be prolonged, many people will die, and innocent people will suffer just because they got unlucky and got a disease. There is no other alternative.

Closing statement- Negative side
So, as we said before animal testing should not be banned for many different reasons. Some of the reasons we pointed out before were: it’s necessary for human life, less people die, and less people have to suffer. It enhances education; it tells us that these chemicals could save thousands of lives. The animals won’t remember the pain, it will just suffer in the moment, while humans remember the pain, and also they suffer when someone close to them dies. Also the pain and distress has been minimized. If humans have the chance to save millions of lives in the future, but would have to kill a few animals in the process, why shouldn’t we? Wouldn’t you do it for the better? Thanks.