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

Thanks for an exciting debate so far, lets keep it up! "Things resulting in mental activity are generally formed by "mental powers" therefore, the ability to reason leads on to believe that animals have a thought process. " No, this really is an ignorant conclusion. You can't assume animals have the same, or even close to the same level of thought as humans. In fact, my definition of thought was more of abstract thought, which I mentioned early. I'm in agreeance with you on a certain statement, "a thought process". A single thought process does not mean they have the same level, or the same amount of thought processes that a human has. Learning does not mean thought, micro-evolution amongst animals is proven - so therefore a finches beak can learn and can think because it evolved in response to the shape of the flowers that it sucked honey from. This is illogical, and it really holds no relevance over the purpose of this debate. My opponent is trying to pin a conditioned response as reason, when it clearly is not. "I usually refereed to experimentation with animals as a whole, separate from any form of country or foreign policy exposition. " Would you care to give me an example? I'd like you to support your wild claims with at least SOME evidence. Actually, I'd prefer we stick to arguing the philosophical portion of this debate, as I mentioned in my 1st speech. "The quote was from an esteemed journalist/ animal rights advocate who did not "scrounge" as my opponent so blatantly claims it but rather researched it. " My opponent completely drops the argument presented. He simply says, "it's from a journalist" therefore it must be undeniable fact? No! As I have shown, my opponent skews his words. I rephrased it, presented my argument, and my opponent completely dropped it. Please extend that argument throughout this round. "4: Humans are tested, for the same reason BUT are fully obliging to the fact that they are being tested upon. " This argument, besides the fact that it falls under the 2nd scenario given and requires no extra scenario, is ridiculously based upon the notion that my opponent has tried to infer that animals can make concious decisions. CONDITIONED RESPONSE IS NOT A CONCIOUS DECISION. A conditioned response is equal to dropping a marble down a chute, it will fall down. Conditioned response shows an inkling of intelligence, however in no way does it classify animals close to human intelligence. It's incredibly ignorant of the idea of reason to assume this. Also, what about products which are dangerous to the human? Products that are life threatening? Is not justifiable to test them on an animal over a human? Just as it is moral to kill an animal if you are starving, it is moral to save a human life, or ensure the welfare of a human life versus an animal life. Simply because humans and animals are different. My opponent has completely disregarded this argument presented. He has failed to address the protection of the specie argument I gave in my first round, please extend it to this round. "So, in that logic, mentally handicap people are subject to experimentation? I question that (Being things of lower intellect are subject to experimentation) is a very moral action. " You're completely skewing my words, and to be honest it's getting to me. This statement more than ever shows how my opponent has completely disregarded the survival of the specie argument presented. If you'd actually like to argue my logic, it'd look a little something like this: "So, in that logic, mentally handicapped primates are subject to experimentation? I question the fact the morality within the given circumstances of that action, regardless of the morality of the individual action of experimentation" My opponent is skewing words in an appeal to the general audience, however I'm not arguing the morality of experimenting on animals, I'm arguing the morality of it versus the other available options. The most moral action is the action that ensures survival of the specie and well being of the specie, and as you can see I have clearly shown that animal-testing, the idea of animal testing, is morally acceptable within the given scenario. Testing on mentally handicapped people would not ensure survival, which we have accepted as the most important issue within a specie. Furthermore, my opponent makes many wild claims about laws, treatment, etc etc and posts a single video and a single quote to undeniable support his case. This is ludicrous, considering the fact that he said he was NOT discussing the United States when both of his links were within the United States. .. I fail to see the logic behind this. So for the crystallization of my points, and in order to remove the falsehoods my opponent is trying to pin on my case, let me explain my entire case in the following paragraph. There are three scenarios in which to test products: 1) Animal testing, in order to ensure the well being and survival of the human specie. 2) Human testing (regardless of willingness), for the following reason. 3) No testing. We can clearly drop the 3rd one, as it'd have a largely detrimental effect. So we're left with two. As I've shown, humans are animals, we are a specie. Within any specie the most important aspect, issue, trial within that specie is ensuring the survival of the specie. Behind that is ensuring the well-being of the specie. With this in mind, we can clearly eliminate the second scenario because it DOES NOT ENSURE HUMAN SURVIVAL / WELL BEING. This point has been completely dropped by my opponent, take that into account. It's irrefutable unless he wishes to change natural instinct. Animals are not equal to humans because, while they have inklings and the beginning of developed thought, they do lack reason. They lack choice, the only ability that has been proven by the test (Pavlov's Dogs) provided by my opponent is the idea of conditioned response, basically, cause -> effect. I punch a wall, my hand hurts. My fist does not have conscience because it decides to hurt, it's a conditioned response. Finally, we are not arguing the morality of testing period. We're arguing the morality of animal testing versus the other options. As I have clearly shown, the other options are against natural instinct and what is most important to the human race. As a judge, you are obligated to vote in the most logical position presented throughout the debate. The logic presented by my case is irrefutable, whereas the logic my opponent presents is nothing but skewing the very words I have said.