Animal Testing (Joke Debate)

I thank mah opponent for this debate. "First I would like to say that anarchy would not be that bad, and second as I have said before, no one would see the homeless they would just be locked up in cages." --> Firstly, in anarchy, government doesn't exist, so that's all government employees without jobs. In the resulting chaos form lack of order, lots of businesses go bankrupt, which results in further unemployment. So, eventually, people don't have money to pay for these products which have been extensively tested on prisoners. Furthermore, without a government these prisoners wouldn't exist due to lack of laws. Secondly, keeping the homeless in cages will mean they starve when the anarchy occurs. While I don't necessarily disagree with that happening, it means your precious test subjects are all dead. "Lol anarchy and saving animals all together, seems like a pretty good deal to me." --> Seems like a pretty bad deal to me, seeing as humans die and not animals. Furthermore, without police these PETA whackos can go around killing whoever they want to release a few ants from "imprisonment" in an ant farm or blow up factories which have nuts which might have used land in their cultivation which cattle might have liked to graze on. "My opponent goes on to argue about the murderers family, but I would say they have little say considering that he raped and tortured an 11 year old girl to death. His right to humane treatment is over." --> When did he do that? And I'm guessing that 11 year old was asking for it in her provocative sun dress, upstanding citizens don't rape and torture for absolutely no reason. Regardless, cases of such activities is extremely rare. And what do you propose be done? Send another underdressed 11 year old into his cell to rape and torture him? I think he'd quite enjoy that. Furthermore I would question where my opponent gets off on this. What sick fetish does my opponent have for putting bleach in peoples eyes and boiling them? My opponent clearly has a sexual motive to access subdued humans, for the purpose of torturing them to get a bit of pleasure. And I'm guessing she proposes to use their boiled skin to make herself luxurious rugs and jackets out of their skin that she can wear while getting off to this sadomasochistic display? "He then goes on to argue about "what if all the criminals die...?" As long as there are laws there are criminals. We start off by eliminating the worst criminals the murderers and rapists and like terrorists, then move on to less serious crime until all crime is gone. Since all crime will not be gone we will keep testing on criminals." --> My opponent feels we should let someone who lighted a spliff or got laid a day before they were legally allowed do so should be at the mercy of corporate testing. However, my opponents argument is self-defeating, and she admits as much, seeing as she admits it will reduce crime, and thus there will be no criminals to test on. We can of course save ourselves the hassle and straight up test things on animals. "Plus I would like to say we could test out human cloning then use clones for test subjects so in a way we would be "breeding" murderers." --> You cannot breed a murderer, a clone of a murderer isn't automatically a murderer, unless they commit a murder. Kind of basic logic and English right there. "Ihave no clue why the bleach would be needed but they put bleach in rabbits eyes so I guess its somehow needed." --> It's obviously needed in rabbits eyes, seeing as they're made of a hard, black rock, probably obsidian, as viewable here: http://foolery.typepad.com... Thus, rabbit eyes can test the properties of bleach quite effectively. "Sure but there are unlucky people everywhere. They would not be able to commit suicide because they would be strapped down and patrolled at all non testing times. They will be placed in handcuffs and other precautions will be taken to keep them alive until results occur, then they are boiled alive." --> That's all fine and dandy, but one that will incur extra cost for security, and two, they can hold their breath, thus killing themselves rather slowly but effectively, unless you intend to take away their breathing capabilities, which would mean very expensive cyborg throats, which makes humans uneconomical. "No they would not if you made them as such. You are saying we should test on them make them into hobo bunnies and thats an excuse to test on them. Does not work." --> My opponent does not deny this would create hobo bunnies, which are indeed a prime specimen. So, not only do we get to test on bunnies, but it creates an almost super-breed of specimens. My opponent clearly wants to deny us the chance of creating a super-race of specimens through a simple AIDS injection. "That is part of the reason they would not be allowed unstrapped. However for the sake of this argument I will also say that AIDS does not kill people quickly so while they have it, they can still be tested on. New test subjects will continue to come." --> AIDS kills people regardless, and eventually every prisoner will have AIDS, and anyone of the general public will realise prison guarantees you AIDS big-time (Which it does regardless of this scenario). Eventually this will kill of all prisoners and lose us our specimens, at which point we need animals. Ergo, it is more efficient to just start with animals and leave our prison population, which makes for great documentaries, moving settings and generally humans with rights, alone "I don't see why shoes would be tested, but I would say forcing them to wear heels may in the short run reduce the productivity of that worker, but in the long term if he can handle working like that and the heels are replaced with something else the productivity would increase." --> If a workers adapts to work in high heels, they're adapting to work in high heels, not any form of shoe. It would be an impediment to the person to spend months with bad productivity wearing high heels and then have to re-adapt to regular shoes. "He goes on to say "a sick prisoner...." is ideal for testing on that sickness. Plus I'm sure giving them cancer and trying to cure it will help with the results." -- My opponent is putting words in my mouth, I never said that. Furthermore, giving someone cancer and attempting to cure it when it currently incurable will mean people will die, and fast. "Humans are stupid, that is my responce to my opponents question. Other bribes could happen too like promising they wont die painfully, which would be a lie, promising more food, may be true but who says what the food is, it could be a dead rat." --> If humans are stupid, then animals are blithering idiots made of flesh and bone. As viewable here [1], all animals bare an elephant, blue whale and a dolphin, which aren't ideal testing subjects anyway, are smarter than man, with rather stupid animals such as moles, goldfish, hummingbirds, and bats being good specimens to test on. Ergo, if my opponent believes it is easy to fool a human, it is even easier to fool other animals. Overall, I have proved it is more economical to test on animals rather than humans, and that the idea of testing products on prisoners is overall self-defeating, whereas it isn't in animals.