Instigator / Con
7
1520
rating
6
debates
66.67%
won
Topic

Animal testing

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Brendo
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
4
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
~ 233 / 5,000

Animal testing is commonly used to test products such as drugs. The argument is that testing on animals is very similar to testing on humans. I disagree and believe that animal testing does not work as much as people believe it does.

Added:
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

So, cons main argument, supported by sources, argued that 80% of drugs that work on animals don’t work on humans. While I don’t feel that this was fully explored by either side, pro didn’t give me any reason to discount cons position here. Pro needed to either disprove this position - or justify why 20% of drugs working justify the usage of animal testing. While pro came in the right ballpark by saying that animal testing doesn’t guarantee the drug will work - pro fell short of overturning this point

In the absence of this, I don’t feel pro offered enough of a justification in support of animal testing otherwise - as the arguments were predicated on arguing that animal testing is useful (which is directly opposed to cons sources argument)

I felt that cons arguments about death row inmates were largely irrelevant as they did not affirm or negate the resolution, so these held no weight.