Animal Rights

First of all, my topic is animal rights. However, it is to large of a topic to discuss in one debate. I decided to choose one aspect of animal rights, cosmetics being tested on animals. In you first counter argument, you stated,"The reason companies put these product together is because they want money. They make money by selling cosmetics. If they can find some odd and out of proportion mixture to make a new color or smell they will."Putting harmful ingredients in products is inexcusable. Also, your statement is irrelevant to the debate becuase we're talking about if its ethical to test products on animals. We're not talking about why companies are abusing animals.You also stated,"Now why do they use dangerous products you asked. Well if chemical combined correctly than the chemicals dangerous attributes can be balanced."I never asked why they use harmful ingredients, I was simply stating that companies shouldn't be putting harmful ingredients in their products.I'm going to bypass the three paragraphs about sodium and chlorine becuase they are also irrelevant to the debate. This is because I never once mentioned anything about combining harmful chemicals.You stated,"So as you can see Pro two highly reactive and dangerous elements combined make salt. So these cosmetic companies are not doing anything wrong by trying to combine dangerous chemicals." I see your point, but I am not talking about combining dangerous ingredients to make other things like salt. I'm talking about companies who blatantly throwing harmful ingredients like parabens and phlathes.You also stated,"You also state this," Ingredients like parabens and phlathes that have already been tested, are still in use." Well Pro as you said there is literally no evidence to prove this."Actually there is evidence to support my claim. If you bothered to read the website, http://www.mindbodygreen.com... you'd know that there is evidence. Here's another website that tells about the risks of phlathes which are in many products.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...When I said,"Animal testing is unnecessary and cruel."I was saying that there are other alternatives and that companies shouldn't be abusing animals for their own gain. When you said,"Well Pro I can tell you this, companies that test on rodents are not doing it because it's fun. They only care about money, they do not want to purposely hurt and kill animals."I understand that companies aren't doing it for fun. That was not was not what I was saying from that statement. And Again, I understand that companies do it for money, but we're talking about if it is right or wrong to abuse animals.In your second argument you stated,"I was trying to say that the reason they test on rodent is because so many people hate rodents."The reason companies test on rodents is because it's easy to exploit animals. They do not do it becuase people hate rodents. I don't know where your getting your information. You also stated,"If they were testing on dogs and cats then people would riot. However they are not."Companies do test on dogs and cats. Your information is false.In your paragraphs about alternatives of animals testing, you talk about how its ineffective and costly. Well, these alternatives are actually more effective and less costly. Human tissue is 77-84% accurate compared to animals testing which is 52-60% accurate. They are also less costly. Human tissue testing is a fraction cost of animal testing.You said,"Testing Cosmetics on animals keeps humans happy and safe. It allows cosmetic companies to make profit as well." So it's okay for companies to create a profit by exploiting animals?Also con, Wikipedia is a reliable source. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you can see the references.I'd also like to point out that my opponent has provided a large quantity of false information.Looking forward to your response.http://www.neavs.org...http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...http://pets.thenest.com...