This house will ban animal testing

I will rebut PRO's content in the third round paragraph by paragraph. Paragraph 1PRO's response to my call for him/her to distinguish between other acts of humanity that involve the suffering of animals for the betterment of human lives is the rhetorical of "do you need to do it with animals? " (to which, of course, I would answer yes, and PRO would realise that my answer is yes if he/she had actually taken the liberty to read my arguments). PRO ignores my refutations that animals do not inherently have so-called 'rights' without bringing up a logical criterion of his own, and ignores the fact that, as per my first rebuttal in the previous round, even if we assume that animals have rights, he/she has still needs to tell us how the rights of animals can be equal to or superior to that of conflicting human rights. It seems that all of my rebuttals have fallen on deaf ears. When I said that animal testing is another way of humans utilising our intelligence to our advantage, I am comparing the doctrinal similarities between animal testing and behaviours which are socially acceptable, such as killing animals for food. What PRO needs to do at this point is to either distinguish these two on a principle level, or argue that both are not socially acceptable at all. Bombarding me with the message that animals are living, breathing creatures does not, to the slightest of extents, fulfill any of this. Speaking of PRO's undying commitment to remind me and the audience that animals are living creatures, we notice that PRO's entire argument in this respect can be summarised into the following: "Animals have rights because they are living things and living things have rights". This is a circular argument founded on the unproven claim as to why living things should have rights, and PRO has yet to tell us why that is the case. Paragraph 2PRO essentially concedes his/her stance when he/she says "Yes, but not always". Putting aside the fact that this claim is accompanied with no evidence, this counterargument still does not stand in a number of ways. In the event that animal testing is used when other methods are not available, that is the problem with the execution and implementation of animal testing, and the fault should be burdened on the scientists and authorities who chose to opt for animal testing when other methods were adequate and sufficient, not burdened on the concept of 'animal testing' itself. We are here to argue the overall conceptual legitimacy of animal testing, and individual cases are by no means enough to corrupt the doctrinal integrity of animal testing. Analogically speaking, one would not claim that food is unhealthy for the human body just because there have been instances where food ingestion has choked people to death. That can only be attributed to the poor eating skills of those people, not the food itself. Paragraph 3PRO seems befuddled with my argument on how animal testing can pose a win-win scenario for both man and animal. When I say that there is "no impact" and then proceed to use the word "benefit" in the same sentence, I am saying that animal testing that there are two scenarios that can happen to an animal when it is being tested on, assuming the testing is carried out in accordance to all rules and regulations and no unexpected incidents occur:1. That the animal is left unharmed, both physically and psychologically2. That the animal (or rather, its species) benefits from the findings of the testThese two are mutually exclusive. I, too, would be dumbfounded if the animal were to benefit and not be impacted by the testing at the same time, but that was not what I was trying to convey. I hope this clarification answers PRO's queries. Paragraph 4By the time we get round to the fourth paragraph, we've already seen the word 'cruel' quite a few times. Why is animal testing, despite my side of the house demonstrating that animals need not suffer, and that it is beneficial to both parties involved, cruel? And if so, what is wrong with being 'cruel' in the first place? Would you say that killing animals for food is not cruel? Would you say that prisoners relish upon the prospect of being locked up in a cell and that they do not find it to be cruel at all? For PRO to make the 'cruel' argument sufficient enough to uphold his stance, he/she must also try and disprove the appropriateness of hunting for food and imprisonment for criminals, something that I have repeatedly called on him/her to do and is something that has not been done. I applaud PRO's relentless attempts to tap into our tear glands, but getting us to imagine a role reversal where the animals are the researchers and humans are being tested on is borderline comedic. PRO has provided us with no reasoning as to why animals would not enjoy the experience of being tested on, and continues to build upon that baseless assertion with a second baseless assertion that is that animals "feel the same way we do". I don't particularly enjoy being eaten, but that doesn't mean I'm not on good terms with my moral conscience when I sit down and feast on a nice steak. Paragraph 5PRO says that "no one needs to know about human rights", which is confusing considering that one of his main arguments concerns the entitlement of animal rights. Even if we do assume that the topic of 'human rights' and the source that I've used on this topic bears no relevance to the debate, by no means does that make it a 'bad source'. PRO lacks a criterion for what a bad source exactly is, and lacks justification as to why PDF sources are so-called 'bad sources'. I would also like to remind PRO that the usage of 'good sources' doesn't exempt one from using circular and pathos arguments, which, frankly, are arguments which do a disservice to those 'good sources'. Why do you vote CON? Vote CON because CON was the only side of the house which argued on the practical and principle implications for both the animals and humans involved in the matter of animal testing. CON was the only side of the house to characterise what it really means to be tested on in animal testing, and CON was the only side that was morally consistent down the bench.