Based on the Bible, Animal Experimentation is Acceptable

I apologize for the misunderstanding, you must not have understood what this debate was truly about. What I mean by the resolution is whether or not animal experimentation is acceptable from a biblical standpoint. I am not saying anything at all about different versions or if people don't believe in God. This debate is strictly about from the biblical standpoint if animal experimentation is acceptable. I guess there was miscommunication of the real intention of the debate. I will try to rebuttal your contentions and clarify the true meaning in the debate: "First of all, not everyone believes in God." This is irrelevant to the subject at hand. We are discussing from the biblical standpoint if animal experimentation is acceptable. For this debate, it does not matter if people do or do not believe in God, the debate is strictly about if based on the Bible if it animal experimentation is acceptable. "Second of all, if we can do experiments on animals then we should be able to do experiments on other humans because technically, we are a more advanced type of animal but we are still animals none the less. Animals are living things just like humans! They should not be abused like this." Okay I find major problems with this argument. First, there is a major difference between people and animals. People have a much higher intellect and thinking capacity than animals do. I realize that humans along with animals are put under the kingdom Animalia, but there is a clear distinction between a person and an animal. A person is an animal, but an animal is not necessarily a person. When you say that animals are living things just like humans, so what? Plants are living things. Bananas are living things. They are clearly different from humans. "They should not be abused like this." I believe you are saying that animals are being abused in animal experimentation. Actually, a majority of animals used in animal experimentation feel no pain at all, and they are helping with research that can possibly save human lives and the lives of other animals. "If a God/Goddess does exist, do you really think that he/she would want you doing experiments on innocent animals? I don't care whats in the bible, that is cruel and animal cruelty should not be accepted!" According to the Bible, which the debate is actually on, God has given us control and dominion over animals to do whatever we want with them, so yes that would support God allowing us to do experiments on "innocent" animals. And just saying animals are innocent is simply an appeal to emotion-many animals are not innocent. "I don't care whats in the bible" This whole debate is on the fact that animal experimentation is acceptable based on the bible! You must not have understood the true meaning behind the debate. "that is cruel and animal cruelty should not be accepted!" Animal experimentation is different from animal cruelty buddy. You obviously do not understand that animals are treated much better in experimentation than they are when they are cruelly treated. It is a common misconception and a fallacy you are projecting. "just because its in the bible doesn't mean its true." Dude, this debate is on whether the Bible supports the acceptance of animal experimentation! Look at the resolution. It does not matter in this debate if everything in the Bible is made up (which it is not), we are discussing whether the Bible in itself supports the acceptance of animal experimentation. "Fourth of all, If it said in the bible that if you believe in God and shoot yourself in the head, you will not die. Would you do it? I think not!" This comment is just absurd. It is not related to the topic at hand-throughout this whole debate you have not answered if the bible does or does not accept animal experimentation-which is the resolution. And technically the Bible would not say that, because many people who believe in God do shoot themselves in the head and die. "I think its more depressing when an innocent animal dies then when a human dies." This is not related to the topic at hand! None of your arguments were! Using the word innocent is again an appeal to emotion-not all animals are innocent, so you would need to prove all animals are innocent. And that is just sad that you think it is more depressing when an animal dies than when a human dies. I have nothing against animals-I love them, but if your mom died and your dog died, which death would make you more depressed? I would hope it would be your mom. In conclusion, my opponent failed to create arguments that related to the topic at hand-whether or not based on the bible if animal experimentation is acceptable. This is strictly from a biblical view and standpoint-my opponent failed to rebuttal my argument and did not make a single argument that answered the resolution. The vote must go to Pro. thank you