DEBATE: Animal testing for medical research should be banned

Home Forums Forum DEBATE: Animal testing for medical research should be banned

This topic contains 24 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Ágnes 4 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • Author
  • #594

    María Salgado

    Thank you Arnis and Eirini…and thank you also to all the members of your teams.
    Just a step forward and the debate will come to an end.
    We are all betting for you…for all of you!


    I am starting this speech referring to your example: penicillin.
    I would like to remind that Alexander Fleming in 1929 set aside
    penicillin for a decade, as experiments on rabbits had “proved”
    the drug was useless. Years later, desperate, he administered
    the drug to a dying patient. The rest is history. Fleming himself
    admitted later the misleading results from animal testing.
    Statistics, not us, have proven since then the unreliability of
    animal testing. And we are now in 2015.
    We have the scientific knowledge and the technological means
    to carry out medical research without torturing animals, and
    that was our first argument, clearly elaborated by our first speaker.
    About your second point, it seems to me that you misinterpret
    our arguments. We are talking about ethics, life, humanism.
    We really don’t think that selling pets can be compared to the
    cruelty of animal abuse in laboratories. As for animals bred
    for food, that is a totally different topic, which could be discussed
    separately, as it has nothing to do with animal testing.
    You seem to forget what we have also described in our second
    speech: infecting with diseases, burning skin, poisoning, blinding,
    paralyzing, causing brain damage, restraining, isolating, electric
    shocks, death is the reality animals live in laboratories.
    In conclusion, I would like to remind that more and more
    universities, national health institutes and researchers announce
    they are retiring the animals they use in the next 2-3 years.
    In 2013 EU banned all cosmetics tested on animals. The road
    to banning all animal experimentation is now open.
    Thank you very much!

    261 words


    Vineta Udrena

    We had a very interesting debate. So, I will
    summarize the debate and explain why my
    team thinks that animal testing for medical
    research should not be banned.

    Firstly I’ll start with our teams 1st speaker’s thought
    that no computer or scientist can really predict how
    medical treatment will affect a living organism.
    And this is where our case clashed with the opponents,
    in a point of dispute – Which method would be better to use?

    The clash was between our teams 1st speaker’s thought mentioned previously
    and affirmative team’s answer
    in the Q&
    A part saying that we could use computer modeling
    or test on human cells. But by using
    these methods we don’t see the direct effect
    medicine has on living organisms, what is
    the main reason why we use animals when
    testing new medicine, by banning animal
    testing we don’t resolve anything It will
    only limit our capabilities when there
    is so much yet to discover.

    Secondly like the affirmative team said animals
    have feelings and should be treated like humans,
    and our team supports animal rights. But we
    live in a world where 90% of the population
    uses animals for many things like clothing,
    hunting trophies, but there are ways that
    animals help humans to survive and those
    are the animals we use for food and medical
    researches by that animals serve a greater
    good saving billions of people from suffering.
    So as long as our society is ready to fully
    respect animal rights or there is developped
    100% reliable and accurate alternative,
    animal testing for medical use should not
    be banned.
    Thank you!



    Nuria Abalde

    Thanks Christina and Vineta. Thanks you all!
    This has been the final touch to an excellent debate. Something like a cherry on the cake :))


    Judit Gera


    Affirmative: Greek team
    Negative: Latvian team
    Moderator: Spanish team
    Judges: Hungarian team

    Topic: Science
    Resolution: Animal testing for medical research should be banned.


    Our working method as judges consisted of holding two meetings before and after the debate itself.
    During the first meeting, we collected the arguments
    for both sides that we anticipated to appear
    at the debate and discussed what research
    has to be done in the topic. Between the meetings,
    we watched videos (this one, for instance,
    is quite useful:, researched the internet and
    asked for material from our science teacher.
    After the debate, we read the “speeches”, questions
    and answers together, and analyzed them.
    We took notes, based on which the teachers have written
    the detailed evaluation of the speakers.

    All in all, we were very satisfied with the outcome
    of the debate. We enjoyed reading the heated
    discussions and the clear and well-structured argumentations. While analyzing your argumentation,
    we also engaged in loud discussions.
    We feel that we certainly got a clearer picture of the considerations lying beneath the issue.
    We also liked that all the texts were written with
    a very high-quality English and that everything was
    posted before the deadline.

    We have only one suggestion, which really does not only come from the teachers.
    Namely, that we would like to encourage the indication of sources (not necessarily like in a thesis or paper,
    but at least names, numbers, other data).
    Although we know from experience how hard it is to get statistics, for example, for this topic,
    this is especially important in the case of a scientific topic where empirical information is central
    to an authentic discussion. We also think that in a written debate, it is even easier to provide our sources.

    Last but not least, we would like to thank you
    (students and teachers who helped) for your hard work.
    We really appreciate all the effort you made during
    this online debate. And an even bigger thanks goes
    to those who had to work during the weekend.
    All of you did a great job! And we would also like to
    thank the moderating Spanish team for the resolution
    and for carefully following the course of the event.

    In what follows, please find our evaluations of
    the individual speakers (and the final result, in the end):

    Speaker A1: Our first online debate was given a great start with a precise and elaborate text from the first speaker of the affirmative team,
    who successfully completed her job as Speaker A1 by introducing the topic,
    giving their definition of the central concept and announcing the structure
    of their argumentation. She also describes the team’s first argument, namely that “it is quite possible,
    if not certain” that medical progress is delayed because the results of animal experiments are misleading. Here, despite the examples,
    we sense a certain degree of hesitation, which disappears later, in the course of the team’s argumentation.
    Still, we never get empirical data (or maybe a quote from a scientist) on what percentage of the medical experiments involving animals actually
    prove to bring misleading results. We also lacked the indication of sources in case of the other examples.
    Her answer to Speaker N3’s question is well-informed and clear.
    Points: 26

    Speaker A2: She picks up the threads by saying that the reliability of animal testing is a misconception,
    but does not support her claim with a source, either.
    However, she continues with a very strong set of arguments focusing on animal rights.
    She successfully incorporates her reactions to the previous claims of the debate during the elaboration of her thoughts.
    She provides a coherent and clearly structured text.
    She seems to be deeply involved in the issue and uses effective rhetorical devices to display her argumentation.
    Yet, some points seem a bit far-fetched, e.g “after a life of pain, they are killed”, especially if we read the very strict ethics codes
    concerning animal testing
    of medical institutes and universities.
    Points: 26

    Speaker A3: The concluding speaker of the affirmative team started out with a great move telling the whole story of penicillin in reaction
    to the previous answer.
    She continues with a smart and focused summary of the team’s argumentation never failing to refer back to the course of the debate.
    Then, she finishes with a point of information, which crowns their argumentation, envisioning and supporting their claim that once
    in the future animal testing
    can really be excluded from medical research.
    Though by naming some of those universities and institutes, this would have been even more convincing.
    Points: 29

    Speaker N1: The first speaker of the contradicting team gave a lengthy, stylish text; obviously
    he could well identify with the argument that animal testing for medical purposes is useful.
    He is a competent writer, uses the arguments of A1, and his rebuttal is trying to be consistent, his structure is generally effective.

    However, he also uses in his argumentation “cancer”, and it is left unclear, whether the animal testing on cancer treatment is effective or not,
    as just like the previous speaker, he does not provide data and sources of his claims. He makes some mistakes (rebottle) but these
    do not undermine his argumentation, which is clear and comprehensible.
    Points: 24

    Speaker N2: The second speaker of the contradicting team gives a very well-structured argumentation,
    relying on the issues raised by the previous speakers.
    It is very relevant that he uses actual examples and highlights the reality of our relation to animals,
    questioning the much-argued ethical argument.
    He maintains his own opinion and replies some of the powerful arguments of the other team, refuting them. Nevertheless the results
    of a possible ban on animal testing seems to be a speculation,
    and it is not supported by any sources.
    Points: 26

    Speaker N3: The last speaker of the contradicting team starts with a very elaborate summary,
    highlighting the main points of the debate. She enumerates all the previous arguments, but she does not give any reliable evidence.
    Does the data she uses come from an actual source?
    The final outcome and conclusion of the debate is articulated but not clearly elaborated.
    Points: 23

    Affirmative team – total: 81 out of 90
    Negative team – total: 73 out of 90

    So the WINNER is … the Affirmative side!!!
    Congratulations, Greek team! :)

    And one more thing: we are really looking forward to meeting you in person in Spain!


    Edgars Liepa

    I must say thanks to Hungarian team for your evaluation, you have done good job, and congratulations to Greek team.

    But I think the biggest problem with this debate
    is word limit, this is a reason why our arguments
    have lack of evidences. As a negative team it is
    much harder to bring evidences and give more
    analysis in our speeches , because we have
    to respond to everything that has been said before.
    Even affirmative team can’t extend their case
    as well as they could. We can barely explain
    our ideas and that’s why lots of things sound like speculations.

    Secondly, thirds speakers shouldn’t bring new
    evidences in their speeches, they can only refer
    to things that have already happened in a debate.
    Sometimes it is fine that last speaker respond to
    what second speakers have said, but without new information.All in all we had a nice debate
    with a good arguments and this topic was debatable,
    but if we want to make this more structured and get
    more explained arguments some things must changed.

    After all it is great that we are learning to engage
    with other people from different places.

    Peace from Latvia. Edgars out.


    Judit Gera

    Thank you, Edgars, for your valuable comments.
    It is great to hear remarks from someone who has
    hands-on experience. Your ideas are very useful,
    and we are definitely going to take them into
    consideration in our next teachers’ meeting.
    As this project is a learning process for all of
    us including teachers, we would like to encourage
    the other speakers to share their experience, difficulties
    and ideas concerning this online debate form.

    Also, we do understand that the position of the
    negative team is a difficult one. Therefore, it was really difficult to make the decision.

    We are looking forward to hearing from all of you,
    Judit & Ági, teachers from Hungary


    Eirini Mpakou

    On behalf of the Greek team, I would like to thank you for this exquisite occurence that we experienced
    the past few days. Short-termed yet wonderful! I wish to note that the Latvian team did a tremendous
    job and presented some serious arguments. A huge special thanks to the judges as well and all the people
    that took part in this debate!
    We are all looking forward to meeting you in person!

    Best regards,
    The Greek team


    Christina Liaskoni

    Thank you very much Hungarian team for your evaluation and your comments,
    I personaly will take them into serious consideration. Also I must say that
    the Latvian team were a very good opponent to discuss this topic with.
    This has been a wonderful and unique experience , I am very happy and excited
    to be a part of this project and it is only the beginning! Me and my team are looking forward to
    go and meet other participants next year in Hungary and have a debate in person with the other students.



    I totally agree with the previous comments, to follow this debate was really exciting and engaging. We have learned a lot from it, not just about the topic itself, but the method too. So as Judit, I also encourage all of you to do as Edgars and comment and share you experiences about the preparation, and how you think we could make this debate more meaningful. Thank you!

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)

The topic ‘DEBATE: Animal testing for medical research should be banned’ is closed to new replies.