Should we use rodents in animal testing? [Lincoln Douglas test] - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Should we use rodents in animal testing? [Lincoln Douglas test]
in Science

Position: Against
This is my first Lincoln Douglas debate, and I decided to make a debate about rodent testing to test it out.

I will argue for stopping rodent testing, as it's unreliable and a waste of money.



Debra AI Prediction

For
Predicted To Win
56%
Likely
44%
Unlikely

Details +




Debate Type: Lincoln-Douglas Debate



Voting Format: Casual Voting

Opponent: Nope

Time Per Round: 20 Hours Per Round


Voting Period: 24 Hours


Forfeited


Arguments



  • Affirmative Constructive | Position: For
    PowerPikachu21 First I may spell things wrong so I apologize in advance. Not saing I disagree with you (I have yet to make up my mind) I accept your debate. Yes rodent testing is not completely reliable it is sum what reliable. Mice have very close symptoms to that a human would have. Not the exact same it can very much help us get a general idea of what might happen. This is useful non the less. If you want to get a close reaction like a human but not use a humans then rodents are one of the bets options. This really the only option for studding on living things. It does not have to be a perfect reaction of a human to be useful. Rodent testing has help develop many treatments and cures and study thinks like best cancer brain injuries and malaria to name a few. If it is helpful it is not a wast of money. Plus we can also find ways to help other animals. 
  • Cross Examination - Affirmative | Position: Against
    Contrary to what some Pro-Animal Testing would believe, testing on animals can be very inaccurate! 80% of rodent reactions aren't shared with human tests [http://www.nature.com/news/preclinical-research-make-mouse-studies-work-1.14913]. In one study in 2006, a new medicine was tested on rodents, and passed amazingly! However, just 1/500 of the same medicine killed later human subjects, giving them intense organ failures [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964774/]

    Now to ask, why are these so different? Well, rodents aren't humans. A miracle drug working on rodents is hardly evidence for a true miracle drug for humans. We only share roughly 92% of DNA coding with mice [https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-and-you/genetics-101/genetic-similarities-of-mice-and-men/], which as we can see, is a big difference. If so many rodent successes equaling human fails, it should follow that we dumped out possible human successes out of rodent fails.

    Plus, this ends up using hundreds of millions of dollars [http://www.nature.com/news/preclinical-research-make-mouse-studies-work-1.14913 , same as 1st source]. Just for something that is hardly worth it in the end. We test on humans anyways, so why not skip the wasteful and inaccurate rodent test?
  • Negative Constructive | Position: Against
    I mixed up my rounds, so this is my cross examination. (My previous post already refutes some claims, so I may refer to that)

    "Yes rodent testing is not completely reliable it is sum what reliable." About 20% of the time, sure. But refer to my 1st and 2nd paragraphs in my other post.

    "Mice have very close symptoms to that a human would have. Not the exact same it can very much help us get a general idea of what might happen." Sorry, but 'exact' is what we're looking for, especially if we're trying to make a miracle cure. Rodents don't get us there.

    "If you want to get a close reaction like a human but not use a humans then rodents are one of the bets options." Refer to the 1st paragraph of my other post. Humans are the best option for testing for humans.

    "This really the only option for studding on living things." I'd like you to explain further on this point. Why aren't we able to test on humans? Why must we use rodents, even if it hardly means anything in the long run?

    "It does not have to be a perfect reaction of a human to be useful." Sorry, but 'perfect' is what we're looking for, especially when dealing with the next plague.

    "Rodent testing has help develop many treatments and cures and study thinks like best cancer brain injuries and malaria to name a few." Could you find me a website and link it here? Keep in mind the 80% of human tests who died, or at least got ill, from false positives of rodent tests.

    "If it is helpful it is not a wast of money. Plus we can also find ways to help other animals." I agree. If it's helpful, it isn't a waste. If 80% of medications kill humans, which is what happened in clinical studies, maybe it's not worth the 100 million dollars it costs. As for other animals, testing on rodents won't help us there either. I'm very sure a rat isn't a cat, and I'm sure they'll get different results.

    In conclusion, my opponent's in an uphill battle. I wish you all the luck and knowledge that I can.
  • Cross Examination - Negative | Position: For
    "Sorry, but 'exact' is what we're looking for, especially if we're trying to make a miracle cure. Rodents don't get us there."
    I disagree. Exact is not always what we are looking for. We should at least improve are understanding before heading to humans. We wan't the best understanding possible before testing on humans and rodents get us a another step closer.

    "Humans are the best option for testing for humans"
    Um I just said with out using humans.

    "I'd like you to explain further on this point. Why aren't we able to test on humans? Why must we use rodents, even if it hardly means anything in the long run?" For one humans are humans and we hold their life at a higher value. We wan't to make sure that things are safer for humans before giving it a try. We test on humans but often after it past other tests one which is rodent testing.

    "Could you find me a website and link it here?"
    Sure I will do you one better. I will find you tree.
    http://www.nabr.org/biomedical-research/laboratory-animals/species-in-research/mice-and-rats/
    https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-use-of-animal-models-in-studying-855
    https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/study-in-rodents-investigates-link-between-cell-phone-radiation-and-cancer.html

    "I'd like you to explain further on this point"
    Rodents are cheep, well understood and adaptable animals which is why we use them. They are also really close to humans. This is if a do not include humans because we value their health. Their are laws in place to protect humans.

    If a I can I will bring some new points in to play. They are also genetically engineering some mice to better fit human behavior and symptoms giving them genes that give humans their diseases. Even if it is not perfect know it keeps improving in accuracy. Mice are well researched animals and when symptoms pop up it is often easy for scientist to find the cause. They can then compare it to what they know about humans. I will wait your response. : )
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch