Example of debate writing (9)

 The government has banned the use of animals in the laboratories for the purpose of dissection. Write a debate in 150-200 words\either for or against this decision. (All India 2015)

Answer: (In exam write any one of the following answers)

The government’s decision to ban the use of animals in laboratories for dissection is a positive step forward. This ban reflects growing concern for animal welfare. It is important to treat all living beings with respect.

First, animals have the right to live free from harm. Dissection often causes pain and suffering. By banning this practice, we protect animals from unnecessary cruelty.

Second, there are many alternatives to animal dissection. Technology has advanced significantly. Students can now use virtual simulations and models to learn anatomy. These methods can be just as effective, if not more so.

Moreover, this ban encourages ethical education. It teaches students the importance of compassion and respect for life. Understanding ethics is crucial for future scientists and medical professionals.

Additionally, dissection may not be the best way to learn. Many studies show that hands-on methods using models can enhance understanding without harming animals.

In conclusion, banning animal dissection is a humane decision. It protects animals, promotes ethical learning, and encourages the use of modern alternatives. This is a step towards a more compassionate and responsible society.

Thank you!

 

Against:-

The government’s ban on using animals in laboratories for dissection is a misguided decision. While animal welfare is important, this ban can hinder education and scientific progress.

First, dissection provides valuable hands-on experience. For many students, working with real specimens is essential to understanding complex biological concepts. Virtual simulations cannot fully replicate this experience.

Second, dissection is a crucial part of medical and veterinary training. Future doctors and veterinarians need to learn anatomy through real-life examples. This practice helps them develop important skills for their careers.

Moreover, banning dissection may limit research opportunities. Many medical breakthroughs have come from studies involving animal anatomy. Removing this option could slow down scientific advancements.

Additionally, ethical guidelines can ensure humane treatment of animals during dissection. Many institutions already follow strict protocols to minimize suffering. A ban is not necessary when better practices can be implemented.

In conclusion, the government’s ban on animal dissection is not the right solution. It undermines education, hinders research, and limits essential training. Instead of banning, we should focus on improving ethical practices in laboratories.

Thank you!