It morally acceptable to experiment on animals for human purposes

Let me begin by thanking mchahine for instigating this debate. It's a pleasure to debate with you on such an interesting topic. ======== Case Con- Rebuttals ======== ---> IA: Humans have dominion over animals with a right to exploit them. I'm not concerned with theological arguments; if you want to make them then you will first have to establish their validity and veracity. Moreover, this entire argument is nothing more than a baseless appeal to authority. [1] ---> IB: Humans have always eaten/exploited animals; it has evolved into our DNA. I don't need to do much more with this argument than point out that you have committed the naturalistic fallacy. [2] The fact that something is natural doesn't make it morally acceptable. Rape is commonplace in the natural world and it occurs in virtually every species of animal. [3] Perhaps you should make your next debate on why rape is morally justified. ---> IIA: Animal testing has significantly improved human welfare Many of the experiments that are done on animals are completely unnecessary. And since alternatives have been created in place of these tests it makes them all the more unethical. [4] This entire argument assumes that the suffering of animals is morally inconsequential. I contend that this isn't the case. It is inhumane to conduct dangerous and possibly harmful experiments on sentient creatures that can feel pain. ---> IIB: Animals are good research subjects because they are similar to humans. It is certainly true that humans and other animals share a great deal in common in terms of their genetic makeup. However, this doesn't make experimentation morally acceptable. (See contention to IIA) ---> IIIA: Animals are exploited by humans without public outcry; why alienate animal experimentation? Firstly, you should speak for yourself. There is a public outcry against the exploitation of animals. [5] Secondly, you're begging the question. The premise of your argument assumes the proposition has already been proven. [6] In order for this argument to be valid you must first demonstrate that animal exploitation is morally acceptable and that it is morally equivalent to animal experimentation. ---> IIIB: Animals are hunted and killed without public outcry; why alienate animal testing? This contention makes the same mistakes as IIIA. Moreover, the fact that something is done without public outcry does not make it morally acceptable. All sorts of evils are committed without massive public outcry. Once again you're begging the question. Moreover, the fact that cars hit animals doesn't make it morally acceptable to experiment on them. What kind of an argument is that? ======= Case Con ======= Contention 1: Animals can suffer Animals are sentient, meaning they can feel pain and pleasure, and are therefore capable of suffering. [7] Since this is the case I will argue that it is morally unacceptable to harm sentient creatures that are capable of suffering. Unlike humans that can volunteer for these potentially harmful experiments animals are incapable of giving consent. And just because they aren't able to speak of their agony doesn't mean that they enjoy being abused and experimented upon or that it morally acceptable to experiment upon them. (Resolution negated) Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.associatedcontent.com... [5] http://www.sonoma.edu... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.animal-rights-library.com... All the best, Freeman