All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One day
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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.
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.