We should torture animals for the benefits for humans.

I hope Con understands that round 3 is where he should refute my arguments. He should of posted his main arguments on round 2 but has ignored the rounds of the debate. I suggest voters to give conduct to one side due to Con ignoring the rounds. I will refute my opponents rebuttal. " Yes, I would test an animal if they had the cure for cancer. But I would also find a good way to do it, one that doesn't hurt the animal. " To find the effects of a animal that has cancer. We first has to give the animals cancer or the animal has cancer in the first place. Than you study them. You can try to do cross sectional studies to the animal but again the animal has to have cancer thus they are suffering. It is impossible to find a way that doesn't hurt the animal. " Just because animals are not human does not mean that they don't feel pain, or have at least some basic intelligence. I've seen dogs, for example, that understand over 1000 human words, and they(dogs) communicate with each other as well, mostly through body language but their growling and howling has meaning to each other to. I'd like to see a human that can understand 100 sequences of dolphin "speech" and imitate right back." May I ask my opponent where they get the link to dogs understanding over 1k human words. I agree dogs can feel pain but I must ask each animal feels pain differently. I am suggesting torturing animals because as humans we know what pain feels like to us thus we feel more empathetic to humans than animals. We would save our fellow man from torture because we know what pain is but I must say we don't know how dogs feel pain. This is a moral choice rather than torturing man to have benefits we use animals to torture to find benefits. "We kill over 56 million animals a year in the U.S. alone, not even including fish and other sea creatures, which measure in the TONNES. But we aren't giving much of that to solve world hunger, are we? We just send it to our nice, expensive restaurants to fill the bellies of fat rich people." Even if we give it to fat rich people we are still benefiting humans. Even if we kill the animals we still got plants in which we can eat instead. Does it realy matter we still benefit humans even though we are killing those animals. "But what if it is one of those bomb-sniffing dogs? Or one that will detect cancer, fire, or when he's about to have a stroke? Pets can be very necessary to people's lives, I know from someone that visited the White House that they have gun/bomb sniffing dogs in security, which probably save our president's life daily." Those are not pets. They are service dogs. Specifically for cancer,fire,or stroke. They are by definition not a pet but a service or working dog. The dogs that sniff bombs are detection dogs. They are not pets. There dogs that work. "So what right do we humans have, besides evolving faster(which is really no right at all) to torture and kill animals, ripping them apart at birth so kids can dissect(translation: utterly destroy) them, or stab them for fancy restaurants? Are we really better than them, when we kill for sport and riches while they hunt for food for their young? Are humans so superior?" So what do you mean as a right to kill them for fancy in our restaurant. We are feeding us. We need food. And how do we get food we kill animals or get it from plants. Animals do it too. They do the same dissect,bite,or even slowly eat the animal alive just so they can eat them. So what cats kill for fun too without even eating it. Cats kill 1.4 to 3.7 billion birds every year. Humans are so superior. We build buildings,invent new things that benefits us,gain new knowledge,even know the planets itself. Has a animal every built a empire. No but humans did. We are superior of our knowledge,ingenuity and our weapons. We can kill every animal in the world if we want. Cites and Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cancer.net... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...