Emergency! Debate Help Needed!?

Question

On Monday debates in my english class will start and continue into Tuesday. I am on the side that is against animal testing. My group consists of three people and the same with the "for" side. The problem is that we need to speak for 1-2 minutes for each point we present. We need 3 points but only have 2.

Our first point is "Animal testing is morally incorrect and kills a ridiculous amount of animals."

Our second point is "Testing on animals sometimes gives innacurate results"


What I really need is a brief 1-2 speech for both of these points. Also I need a third point.

Additional items would be... something that would "shock" the audience (maybe visual), improvements on the 2 points that I already have, and finally the most important...

Good rebuttal statemants. The other team knows a lot of what we're going to say but I need to know what are some things that they might say.

Thank you all. Your help is very appreciated.

Answer 1

Each year about five million dogs, cats, rabbits, rats, monkeys, and other animals die in lethal dose tests performed in the U.S. During a lethal dose test, the expiremental substance is forced into the animals throats, or is pumped into their stomachs by a tube, sometimes causing death by stomach rupture or from the sheer bulk of the chemical dosage. Substances are mixed in lab chows, injected under the skin, into a vein, or into the lining of the abdomen, they are often applied to the eyes, rectum and vagina or forciblly inhaled through a gas mask. Expirementers observe the animal's reaction which include convulsions, laboured breathing, diarrhea, constipation, skin eruptions, abnormal posture, and bleeding from the eyes, nose or mouth. According to statistics, 50\% of these animals will die in this expirement 2 to 3 weeks later.
The horrible fact about these incidents is that they are unneccesarry as there exists cheaper, efficient and more realistic results that can be used instead of animals.


Here's an even better list:
Practical argument

* Animal testing can be misleading. An animal's response to a drug can be different to a human's .

* Successful alternatives include test tube studies on human tissue cultures, statistics and computer models.

* The stress that animals endure in labs can affect experiments, making the results meaningless.

* Animals are still used to test items like cleaning products, which benefit mankind less than medicines or surgery.

Moral argument

* Animals have as much right to life as human beings.

* Strict controls have not prevented researchers from abusing animals.

* Deaths through research are absolutely unnecessary and are morally no different from murder.

* When locked up they suffer tremendous stress. Can we know they don't feel pain?

Answer 2

not going to write the whole thing out for you but here are some key points. animal testing is crucial because it gives a chance for scientists to discover new medicines and procedures to sustain human lifes( make some kind of point to draw out anyone who has had a family member that is on medication or has had an operation that has saved thier life) do not agree with animal testing in shampoos and consumer products like that vanity should not be a viable source for animal cruelty. and to dispute the inaccuracies with the testing you can use the overwhelming success that we have had with the better majority of the testing although it sucks and it is cruel to animals ask if someone would rather give up the life of thier mothers or fathers for 100 cats or dogs. if for every ten mistakes that they may make in testing if one saves the lives of hundreds would it be worth it if it was thier life? oh and do your own homework from now on

Answer 3

There must be lots of things you can find on line like stories of animals killing themselves jumping against the windows of their cages trying to escape the pain they are in, or photos of scarred, deformed animals that have been treated with chemicals. A third point should be one that will refute the obvious point of your opponents: that animal testing saves human lives. Find treatments that could have been found just as easily without mistreating animals.

Answer 4

Your question is like asking "Why do I have to learn the alphabet in order to read?" Science is the basis for most of what we do in medicine. Sure, you can learn what to do in some circumstances, but that makes you a technician, not a physician. The circulatory system is physics. Medications are chemistry. Knowing what the parts of the body are and how they work is biology. I could go on, but you should be able to get the picture. You can skip the rocks and fossils. The rest, you'll need to know if you want to be any sort of physician.

Answer 5

I guess you are the negative side, and the other is affirmative for testing on them. Well, they might rebuttal in saying that animals are harmed more violently in many other ways that testing on them, I mean we kill and eat them for darn sakes!, and why would testing be any different. Also we use their fur as coats and if we stopped testing wouldn't we have to stop using their skin?

You could say something like:

It is morally wrong to use animals as lab rats to test makeup, perfume, and other common products. It is not fair the torture we would put them thorugh is something went wrong.

Answer 6

First of all, I am sorry... you are going to lose. I, myself, am not against animal testing, but I am against animal torture.

Anyways, before denying humanity something it badly needs for its survival, you should offer a decent alternative. Think of one as this might be one of your opponents' questions (What is the alternative?)

Answer 7

if your religious try a quote from the bible