Animal Testing

I believe that my opponent is insinuating that humans are much more superior to animals, if I am correct. This would mean that the psychological and physical differents would be immediately pointed out. Which means that all reactions coming from animals will not be corresponding to those of humans. I do have examples and proof of disasters due to differences between the two species: Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients (The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface). Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident, but it caused severe neurological problems in humans. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems. There are many, many other disasters within the animal testing experiments, and you say: "Either way, many, MANY humans will die or suffer terrible side effects when animals could have been used instead." Many have died FROM animal testing. "A rabbit for example, wouldn't feel tortured." Like you have stated before, from the chinese proverb, how could you feel sure that you know is isn't feeling tortured? Also, torture is a broad term. It could mean anything from slight physical pain to serious psychological confusion. "it would be wrong for us to eat plants or animals, to disinfect surfaces, to use pesticides, to destroy weeds, consume antibiotics or antiviral medications, etc." Many livestock are being killed everyday for food. Why add to the mounting number of deaths, when those in the labs can be stopped? Why cause more physical and perhaps psychological pain? When you disinfect surfaces, you do kill bacteria. Bacteria, however, are single-celled. They have no nucleus. They simply have the required elements to survive and DNA material to reproduce. Animals have so much more; they have the intelligence to feel; even if we do not know what they are feeling, what would cause behavioral differences besides feelings? As for destroying and eating plants, I do not believe that we are talking about plant testing or gardening. Please do not go off on a tangent. As for the poison issue, yes, many animals do die by posions. Who's to disagree? But as the animals adapt to their surroundings, poisons must be strengthened, and have flaws altered. When this happens, the creators will wish to determine whether or not their poison is successful, thus testing it on animals. This kills animals being tested as well as those who have never set foot in a lab. Since you have requested proof that animals have rights, I will give it to you. When I see a dog wag its tail in euphoria, whimper in lament, growl in frustration, or other physical signs indicating emotions, I know I can believe that animals have emotions. You may ask me how I know, but why question this when no one questions when a human smiles or frowns? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opponent is clearly trying to state that the superiors are meant to be living in high quality, and the less developed are in a "survival-of-the-fittest" world, and should face the fact that they will be manipulated for the more intelligent being's advantages. So clearly, those of us with any disadvantages would be picked off in this "evolution-by-way-of-natural-selection world." Also, my opponent has also not said any major points to be used towards animal testing except that "it helps humans" and "animals are less sophisticated", etc etc (basically promoting the existence of the human race and questioning animal rights). Those are two main points. There have been counter-arguments, but no other reasons. I know that you may say that those two are enough, but why isn't an animal's pain enough? Anywho, there have been many more sufficient reasons posted in this argument that you will hopefully read thoughtfully and thoroughly without "skimming through" I hope I have analyzed my opponent accurately, because this seems to be his point between humans and animals. Why not apply it to those among the human race?