Animal Testing (Joke Debate)

I thank Lovelife for this debate. Without further adieu *cracks knuckles* let's get started :P. My opponent as stated drugs ought not to be tested on animals, but on the scummy underbelly of society (the homeless, prisoners, rapists, etc.). However, does my opponent really think this is a good idea? Should Hugo Boss really get the common tramp at the side of the street to test out their new line of suits and colognes? The poor are poor for a reason, the last thing we need is for them to be prancing around our nation wearing the latest fashion trends and smelling like a summer breeze, defeating their purpose of looking pitiful and making the middle class feel superior. By doing so ware also removing a huge comical aspect from society. No more will be the pictures of monkey butlers. not only would companies such as Hugo Boss get reliable feedback of the suit in terms of handling banana stains, tree branches and the limit of the excrement it can contain, will also give them the opportunity to get hilarious pictures of these animals wearing these outfits. I challenge the audience and my opponent to not smirk when they view this photo: http://cheekspopov.com... As for medical testing, many tests, especially vaccines where the disease is injected into the the person, can be deadly. If prisoners are given the experimental BUMFUN Anti-AIDS vaccine, and get AIDS, the company will be hammered with lawsuits. Should a rabbit be given AIDS through this vaccine, it would be enjoyable to see the rabbit comforted by it's family rejected by its lover, go through depression, become a drug addict and eventually commit suicide,seeign as everything a rabbit does is about 10x cuter. While I'm not necessarily against testing some products on humans where necessary, such as dildos and high heels, testing the same products on animals is not only funnier, testing it on humans could have nasty side effects. Not only the above mentioned ones, but various other ones. Imagine if a prison queen was given the AIDS vaccine and it worked!? Where would be the justice in that be, a man locked up for life in a paradise of hunky men with no repercussions. This would be giving him a free pass to a brothel for life. And then what, you propose we try dresses and cosmetics on this person, so he can live his homoerotic fantasies of being a disney princess in a castle? That would be deplorable, and would result in the government paying for these prisons so gay men can be chained up by the big bad policemen, sent off to big bad prison and live the gay life at the expense of the taxpayer! Of course, if this happened in a group of antelopes being tested, it would be an instant Youtube hit, with antelopes prancing around like Queers and mindlessly f*cking one another. Prisoners are better suited for hard labour, or military work. This ensures any gays will quickly be killed due to overwork to their frail bodies or being shot while doing their nails on patrol. Any real men would quickly survive, and of course, do their nation a favour by being slaves to the system. Now, I will elaborate on why it is preferable to use products on animals. Animals are very easily subdued, much more so than humans, and thus easier to test things on. For example, let's just say Billy Mays (Rest his soul) was demonstrating why you should buy a SuperScrubber, a product made of steel wool to clean your home. It would be hard to keep a human still while scrubbing them intensely with this product, let alone stop any screaming and crying. However, getting a Platypus and scrubbing it intensely would show the real results of the SuperScrubber on the Platypus' now non-existent skin. Animals are also a lot cheaper. Paying for a prisoner can cost you $22,000 a year [1]. And, you will have to add health costs to that if dangerous products are being tested on them, as Physicians quire a salary of between $121,023 - $170,065 [2], while veterinaries are significantly cheaper at between $58,726 - $88,170 [3]. A doctor can potentially cost twice as much as a veterinary! Also, humans can be picky, with them being lactose intolerant, have nut allergies and whatnot. Many of the dirty Islamic terrorists my opponent wants products tested on will not even touch pig meat! Animals rarely suffer from such food problems, and thus a wider range of products can be tested on them. While my opponent may argue the cost of a prisoner is why we should perform tests on them to start with and not spend money on keeping animals for the same purpose, a huge amount of prisoners are due to silly anti-drug laws [4], so in reality, the cost of prisoners shouldn't be so expensive, and they shouldn't be so bountiful. Overall, it's pretty clear too me. Testing products on humans is a difficult and expensive process and creates negative effects , while testing them on animals is cheap and creates hilarious results. Back to my opponent. [1] = http://www.heartsandminds.org... [2] = http://www.payscale.com... [3] = http://www.payscale.com... [4] = http://en.wikipedia.org...