Animal Testing is Inhumane and should be illegal

Firstly, I'd like to ask my opponent a question for clarification of this debate's rules and parameters.To my opponent: Being that it is that the rules dictate a correct use of conventional grammar and spelling, is it out of bounds for me to point out grammatical and spelling errors made? I'm typically not very strict as long as the point is made, but the rules seem to obligate that I point them out. Is it optional? Is it mandatory? Is it advised against? I'd like to be clear on how we're dealing with that. That's all. /opponentSociety's Sympathizations to Species Sans-HumanIt's pretty obvious that animals deserve our attention if anyone deserves our attention. Animals often surpass humans in many areas of intelligence, strength, and speed, and have more practical use in our society than what they're used as today (tortured, eaten, and all that other stuff that my opponent will most surely mention).Of course, the body of scientific knowledge that led up to this is exactly that: Scientific knowledge. Knowledge deduced, induced, and abduced through scientific rigor. We know what we know of animals through research, experimentation, and testing.Testing is vital to our understanding of the natural world. We test several phenomena under specific circumstances to understand them. That's simply what it is. We test on humans all the time, and are doing so right now, why should animals be any different or "special?" We could treat animals differently from us in terms of ethics and such, but that doesn't ensure that that treatment would be humane. So, just as we test humans with science, we should treat animals with the same rigor.The only problem I can see is the lack of consent. They're born, and they're tested. However, if the standard of living is sufficient for those tested, I don't see the problem. Consent is not necessary for humans when they are born into a government in which the standard of living is sufficient. Born into a nation with sufficient resources to feed and nurture everyone, is one not a citizen until they have the age to give consent for such things? In the same sense, do we have to condition an animal to learn between two choices so that they understand to give consent every time? We have the ability to do that, but it would be inefficient and unnecessary.That is my argument for why animal testing is vital and should not be illegal.With my arguments made, I'd like to rebut my opponent with the remainder of this round.Obligatorily Opposing My Opponent's ObligingsMy opponent's first point is that animals feel pain. My opponent states that when we test animals, the procedure involves sticking chemicals down their eyes, as an example of testing being inhumane.There is absolutely no evidence that this is part of any standard procedure in typical animal testing. My opponent cites no sources, despite dictating in the rules of this argument that that is a necessity. So far, my opponent has broken the majority of the rules set by their own self.The claim that this is something that's done to ensure that their capacity in pain is sufficient for testing is a rather big claim, so I don't understand why my opponent would breeze right past it without properly giving a source.The next point my opponent makes is that people in jail make stronger candidates for testing.In case my opponent actually means jail instead of prison, I'm going to make an argument against that. What!? Being in jail does not strip you of all citizen and consensual rights! That's not how jail works!In the case that my opponent did misspell/miscommunicate what was meant to be communicated, it's worth noting that experiments were done on prisoners for a very long time. The protection of prisoners was heightened recently due to abuse of scientific conduct. I don't see it as being a dilemma, an ultimatum between animals and prisoners. They're all worth testing. Disqualifying a batch is unfortunate, but we've still got batches aplenty.To my opponent: Of utmost urgency, I'd like you to address the following points first: Clarification of the rules; How animal testing is inherently inhumane. The rest can be replied and rebutted to in your own time and pace. Thank you. /opponent