Instigator / Con
7
1520
rating
6
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#601

Animal testing

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Brendo
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
4
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
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.