Animal Testing

"I never stated that they were happy. However, with "human rights" or not, I still wouldn't say that I would enjoy being mutilated or have needles shoved into me, animal or human. It doesn't matter whether or not they aren't as intelligent. Nothing should be forced to go through that type of agony." Again, I bring back the example of the proverb. You simply cannot look through the eyes of another animal. Every judgment you make will be biased through the human lens. So no, you have absolutely no way to justify your claim that you would feel a certain way if you were the animal being tested. Animals may find it displeasing and seek a way to escape from their fate, but the mental anguish from tormenting humans simply cannot be assumed to be present in other animals. Feel free to describe it with human ideals and through a human lens all you want, but know that it does nothing to validate your argument. "We seem to be doing a very bad job of "manipulating the environment", seeing as we are creating a hole in the ozone layer, have killed off many species, and not to mention the oh-so-delightful pollution." That's your opinion. Have you seen our technological advancement? The fact that our life expectancy has more than doubled its natural length? There is no comparison between the human species and the next most fit species. Temporary environmental problems pale in comparison to how much we have accomplished for our species. And by the way, the extinction of other species is not a mark of negativity. Thousands of species become extinct naturally. There is nothing inherently bad about a species going extinct, other than not being able to see them in a zoo. "Of course they die by poisoning. Animal testing will create an innumerable amount of poisons, killing even more animals." I challenge this claim. I feel you have no evidence for it and thus, I will call it out as invalid. I also feel you have completely missed my argument and were just skimming through it and saw the word "poison". When medications have side effects, the lab animals pay the price. This allows us to refine the drug to make it safe. If anything, animal testing creates LESS poisonous substances for testing. "We have gotten far in the field of sciences. There can be many ways to enhance our knowledge, but we could do it without torturing poor creatures." I can label you a pink llama and it would not help this debate. Labeling them as poor creatures and labeling our treatment of them as torture does little to show that you have an unbiased and logical explanation of your belief. It gives me the impression that your personal beliefs and biases are the only thing you have to convince me of your argument. **************************** My opponent is clearly a very caring and considerate person. However, my opponent has made absolutely no logical argument against animal testing. My opponent has refused, and thus, conceded all the points I made about animal testing being necessary to save human lives, and about animals not having rights. I have given my reasons and I now invite my opponent to provide me with a logical argument whereby it is overwhelmingly shown that animal testing should be banned for objective reasons.