Animal Rights

First off voters I would like to add that my opponent has changed the name of the debate to "Animal Rights". I however will continue debating the original debate "Testing cosmetic products on animals is wrong." Counter Argument #1 In you opening paragraph you state," Well, companies shouldn't be putting harmful ingredients in their products." 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. Now why do they use dangerous products you asked. Well if chemical combined correctly than the chemicals dangerous attributes can be balanced. For example: NaCl, Sodium Chloride (Table Salt). This chemical formula bonds Na(Sodium) and Cl(Chlorine). To make simple table salt something people eat all of the time. Well here are the properties of Sodium and Chlorine by themselves. Sodium: 1. Contact of sodium with water, including perspiration causes the formation of sodium hydroxide fumes, which are highly irritating to skin, eyes, nose and throat. This may cause sneezing and coughing. Very severe exposures may result in difficult breathing, coughing and chemical bronchitis. Contact to the skin may cause itching, tingling, thermal and caustic burns and permanent damage. Contact with eyes may result in permanent damage and loss of sight. 2. Sodium's powdered form is highly explosive in water and a poison combined and uncombined with many other elements. Chlorine: 1. Breathing small amounts of chlorine for short periods of time adversely affects the human respiratory system. Effects differ from coughing and chest pain, to water retention in the lungs. Chlorine irritates the skin, the eyes, and the respiratory system. These effects are not likely to occur at levels of chlorine that are normally found in the environment. 2. Chlorine causes environmental harm at low levels. Chlorine is especially harmful to organisms living in water and in soil. 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. 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. Finally you concluded your opening paragraph with this,"Animal testing is unnecessary and cruel." 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. Counter Argument #2: My con says this as his second argument," In your second argument, you state,"The animals tested on range from rats,rabbits,guinea pigs, and mice. Every one of these animals are classified as rodents. These animals are already being hunted,exterminated, and abused. Cosmetic testing is getting rid of what people don't want." That is a baseless reason to allow testing on animals. There is no evidence to show that cosmetic companies help exterminate rodents. There is literally no evidence to support that claim" I was not trying to say cosmetic companies help exterminate rodents. I was trying to say that the reason they test on rodent is because so many people hate rodents. If they were testing on dogs and cats then people would riot. However they are not. Most people want these animals dead. I'm not saying everyone now but many people do. In your answer to my question you cited a source that had some of the following alternatives: EpiSkin", EpiDerm" and SkinEthic"each composed of artificial human skin"can save thousands of rabbits each year from painful skin corrosion and irritation tests. Using blood from human volunteers to test for the presence of fever-causing contaminants in intravenous medicines can save hundreds of thousands of rabbits each year from traditional "pyrogen" tests. There are two reasons why these test are not used. 1. Effectiveness: When ever you take a blood sample and test on it then we know it may be safe for blood. However there are many other human body part that have to be accounted for. The product could be dangerous to a liver or lungs. Testing blood will not help know that. 2. Cost and amount The first alternative would cost too much money for these large corporations. The second alternative suggests volunteers. Which is very cost effective. However not everyone want to give their blood for cosmetic testing. Blood Donations to hospitals do not even receive enough yet you expect people to give to cosmetic testing? Conclusion: Testing Cosmetics on animals keeps humans happy and safe. It allows cosmetic companies to make profit as well. Sources: (http://www.lenntech.com...) (http://www.lenntech.com...) P.S. Pro Wikipedia is not a credible source.