animal testing

While it is possible that my opponent happens to have posted this very same argument across various websites, it is such a change in style that I cannot help but wonder if it is plagiarized [1]. My opponent may work for PETA [2], but I personally am highly skeptical as to the originality of these arguments.Still, I will counter these arguments anyway.Con writes '[A]nimal testing is often extremely cruel and completely unnecessary. For example, I once saw some undercover footage from a laboratory in which dogs were being force-fed weedkiller.'One anecdote is hardly sufficient to determine a general pattern.Con writes 'Scientifically, testing products meant for humans on animals is unreliable and potentially dangerous.'My opponent has failed to respond to my sourced arguments about all the medicines and techniques developed using animal testing, preferring instead his/her/its own theorizing.Con writes 'My personal view is that products meant for humans should be tested on humans. It's the only way to know if they will work as intended, and we have the choice of whether or not to volunteer for testing'Of course products should be tested on humans, but they should be tested on animals first.Con writes 'Our greater intelligence gives us a responsibility to protect other species, not the right to use and abuse them in any way we see fit - that should be abhorrent to any sentient, compassionate being.'Animal testing also helps animals:'Animals also have improved healthcare and a longer lifespan. Farm animals, household pets, wild species and endangered species are all benefiting from the research conducted through animals. There are vaccines for rabies, distemper, tetanus, parvo virus and numerous other illnesses in cats, dogs and countless other domesticated animals. Cats now have a treatment for Feline Leukemia.' [3]What personally seems more abhorrent to me is to let the far more valuable humans die/suffer over other species. One who doesn't care for his own species is a failure.Con writes 'It's unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear.'Why? It helps humans.Con writes 'It's bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans.'How does that make it bad science?Con writes 'It's wasteful. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research.'Bare assertion.Con writes 'It's archaic.'Actually, we'd probably still be stuck in the middle ages (medicinally) if we never used animal testing.Con writes 'The world doesn't need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals' lives.'But we could use a cure for cancer so badly that it should come at the expense of animals' lives.ConclusionMy opponent has not directly addressed any of my arguments, and has preferred to copy/paste some arguments off the internet. I am very disappointed.Sources: 1. http://ph.answers.yahoo.com...;2. http://www.peta.org...;3. http://www.pro-test.org.uk...;