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

Before I begin any refutation or the articulation of a case of my own, it's necessary to get a few things out of the way. First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for challenging me to such an interesting and prominent debate in today's society. Secondly, I'd like to get this out of the way, I hope that you, the judges will vote on this debate regardless of personal bias and instead off of the better debater. Finally, it's necessary to clarify a few things before I begin. The resolution specifically states that the products tested are tested on animals but are designed for human use. This will be of importance later on. Also, it does not give a specific scenario that justifies animal-testing, only animal-testing as an event. Finally, it uses the term "acceptable". It is morally acceptable for an action to occur if it is the most moral action. We are not arguing the morality of said action, only the morality of this action versus other possible scenarios. Formalities and framework out of the way, I'll address my opponents case before articulating my own. "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. Animals are not philosophers, we have no current test that could possibly prove the ability to illogically reason, as some of our greatest philosophers have done, to play devil's advocate, if you will. Animals can only react upon a conditioned response. So you see, this test may imply some inkling of a beginning of reason, however it does not imply the ability to reason on the same level as humans. This logical conclusion shows that animals are not on the same level as humans, because they do not (assumedly) have the same brain functions that are attributed to mankind. My opponent uses the word, "similar", as you can see similar implies some relevance, however they are not the same. This idea applies greatly to this debate - it can only be equally unjust to test on an animal as a human if the animal is equal to the human, not similar. My opponent cannot show equality, therefore you see the justification present here. You can clearly see, testing on animals is justified over humans because humans have a better developed brain pattern. Human reasoning has developed and is far past the small response animals have procured. "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. As you can see, the amount of weight this holds on the debate is small to none. Like I stated above in the framework of the debate, there is no specific animal testing implied. Only animal-testing in general. The resolution is not, "There should be reforms for animal-testing in America", or, "Animal-testing systems in America are unjust", the resolution is, "It is morally acceptable to test products designed for human benefit or use on animals." Therefore this restrictive scenario which is such a prevalent theme of my opponents case holds very little weight in the philosophical debate that the resolution implies. "3) 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. "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. Most of the judges will agree that this refutation is not as thorough as it could be. The reason for this is because there's a large part of my case that must be presented below which backs up all of the previous refutations. Now, pay close attention as I prove how animal-testing is morally acceptable. By definition of animal (American Heritage Dictionary), " A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure." We see that humans are also animals. They are not the same as other animals, because of the evidence presented in refutation of his first contention, however they are still a specie of animal. As any logical thinking being will agree, the most prominent issue in any specie is survival of the specie. For example, if you were starving and there was a chicken nearby, it would be morally acceptable to kill and eat said chicken. This is because A) the chicken is lesser than the human, B) it is necessary to ensure (for a while) the survival of the specie. The second most prominent issue is the well-being of the specie. So, how does this hold relevance? Let me divulge deeper into this issue... 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. What seems most logical? We can eliminate the 3rd scenario instantaneously, because that scenario has no benefit whatsoever. We are now left with the two scenarios: Animal Testing or Human Testing. 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. Finally, take into account the framework argument I presented in the beginning of this case. I specifically noted the moral, "Acceptability" of this action. In all scenarios there is a detrimental effect, however we must not examine if said action is moral, but if our morals allow this action to happen. Our morals allow, permit and accept animal testing because it is the, "lesser of two evils" so to speak. This is why it is acceptable, because all other scenarios endanger the issues so dear to any race whereas this issue helps protect both the well-being and the survivability of the race, but has almost no moral weight because animals, as I have shown, are lesser than human beings. So, let's recap. 1) Animals are lesser than human beings. 2) Not testing animals would endanger both human survival and human well-being. 3) Therefore, we must take animal testing over the other scenarios because it is the most beneficial and the most moral of all the actions. For those reasons presented to you, as well as the clear refutations of my opponents case above, you must vote Con. Thanks again, ~HQ