It is morally acceptable to test products designed for human benefit or use on non-human animals.

Thank you for that rebuttal and to the judges, I would like to concur with my opponent in asking that bias not hold your judgement in this decision. That being said, I would like to point out a few things my opponent might have misinterpreted: 1) ""1) An animal is no less justified as a living creature as a human is." I'd like to refute the Pavlov's dogs instance which has been presented. The tests conducted by Pavlov only show a conditioned response among animals. This test can imply the ability to reason, however all it specifically shows is that animals can learn, somewhat, from previous actions. However, the idea of emotions or any thought is not proven." I never once indicated animals have emotional expression, therefore the only thing left to prove is that animals have thought process. If an animal has a conscious ability to deduce, is that not thought? M-W defines thought as "the product of mental activity; that which one thinks" reason as "the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences" Things resulting in mental activity are generally formed by "mental powers" therefore, the ability to reason leads on to believe that animals have a thought process. 2)"Animals are not verbally objective and are not being supported, by law, against test or abuse." The relevance to the actual debate that this contention holds is frail, at best. We are not discussing whether current animal-testing conditions in America are just, we are discussing whether animal-testing period is just. " I never mentioned America specifically, save for my quote which I will elaborate later. I usually refereed to experimentation with animals as a whole, separate from any form of country or foreign policy exposition. ""Animal experimentation rests on logical contradiction." The logical contradiction that my opponent presents is not a logical contradiction, because the quote he uses skews the words. A better analysis would be: We test animals because they are like us. So why is it just? They ARE NOT us. There is no logical contradiction there, the fact is we test animals because they have a similar features as humans, however they are not humans. I do not see a contradiction here, because there is no logical contradiction, only a contradiction in the skewed words presented by the quote my opponent has scrounged out of the depths of the internet." The quote was from an esteemed journalist/ animal rights advocate who did not "scrounge" as my opponent so blatantly claims it but rather researched it. 4) ""And procured in this website: "As many as 115 million animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year..." As I have stated above, we aren't discussing animal-testing in a specific scenario, we are discussing the premise, the ideal of animal-testing overall." I am not suggesting that only one area be explored. no, this was just a number, a statistic that was most apt. If you would like a world applied statistic, I would gladly give one. If you're speaking of its relevance to my contentions or the resolution itself, you might want to recheck what exactly I said: My contention under which this scenario lie was used in order to expound upon the fact that animals were being tortured and mistreated. "I offer you a scenario-by-scenario analysis of the resolution. Scenario 1: Animals are tested, to ensure that a bad product does not make its way into human culture and cause devastating side effects to humans. Scenario 2: Humans are tested, for the same reason. Scenario 3: Nobody is tested." My opponent delivers an ultimatum when, truely, he has missed another, very viable solution: 4: Humans are tested, for the same reason BUT are fully obliging to the fact that they are being tested upon. Yes, it still leaves us with two scenarios as a whole but the biproduct of one is more suitable. "As I have shown, animals are of lesser intellectual fiber than humans, classifying it as more justified to test upon them than on the humans. But also, refer to the argument I have presented above. Well-being of the specie and survival of the specie are the two most important issues. Human testing would endanger both the well being and the survival of the human in question by subjecting him to dangerous materials." So, in that logic, mentally handicap people are subject to experimentation? I question that (Being things of lower intellect are subject to experimentation) is a very moral action. Also, if you want to get into the acceptance level, it would end up a fallacy so I ask my opponent not to use that point for the good of the both of us and the judges. In that, I strongly urge you to vote in Negation of this resolution Thank you.