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

"That is not an ignorant conclusion as I never once said animals are close to the thought process of humans. Therefore, you have no justification for cslling my point invalid or ignorant. It is a simple notion that if an animal has a thought process, we have to further prove it's thought process in order for you to be justified. That is unattainable at the present time." Yes, unattainable. So we must assume that they do not, for the time being. Therefore, the resolution, which is spaced in real-time is based on the present science. So, you've just conceded this point to me. "The fact alone that it was from a journalist doesn't make it infallible. What makes it less than refutable is that it isn't just some random quote scrounged from the depths of the internet. It was a more valid source than you give credit for." No - the point I was trying to make is that it wasn't debating my case. It's like if I bring up a refutation to a religious argument for homosexual marriage when you were arguing that it devalues the idea of a standard american family. The quote doesn't hold relevance because the only way that it possibly could is if you skew my words to fit, which is why I frequently brought up that point. "I took your words as they were, they did not need my skewing for they were already in the order for me to use them to my advantage. My quoteS (For I've had several) are not just limited to the United States, though the one given hence was given to give an idea." I asked you to give me more evidence in my 2nd speech, evidence you failed to procure. Please stop skewing this in your favor, you've had 3 quotes. One of them is the quote from the journalist which I discuss above, one of them is on Pavlov's Dogs, a point you've already conceded to me, and your 3rd was about the United States. "We've been through this, taking a risk with something that has no say otherwise versus a willing candidate is an obvious choice." Willing candidate? You said that many animals undergo: "pumping chemicals into rats' stomachs, hacking muscle tissue from dogs' thighs" How many people would be willing to undergo such treatments? I don't think any at all, actually. I don't see how this point makes sense, there's no willing demographic to undergo the testing necessary in order to ensure safe products for the human race, so we look to the most efficient, best solution with the least moral obligation - animals. "And to refute your case in its entirety, that is, what your last argument was concluded on, if the human is willing to risk it's life, it's for the betterment of mankind as a whole." You haven't shown how any human would be willing to risk his life! You've given a SINGLE QUOTE from a SINGLE JOURNALIST which holds NO relevance and you expect me to except your case as infallible truth? There is no demographic to undergo the strenous testing required, so, as I said before, we pick the lesser of two evils - animals. "Such as, If a man were to be given the choice: "Die or all of mankind is doomed" Doomed as "to give judgment against : condemn" The man, to further the human race, would have to choose death in order to benefit mankind. That is not to say experimentation will always lead to death but it puts it into perspective" First off, the definition you give for doomed doesn't fit the statement you make, but I understand the general idea. This idea holds true, but if the man in experimentation is not faced with this ultimatum, he has the choice to NOT die, to NOT undergo experimentation and instead use animals. Therefore maintaining the survival of the human race and never endagering human rights. "Though my opponent offers an in-depth and logical debate, I feel it is no more infallible than mine is. If anything, mine is closer to infallibility than my opponent's which is why I strongly encourage my judge to vote in affirmation of this resolution. Thank you and the best of luck to my opponent, it's been an enjoyable debate." My opponent talks about infallibility, however he says my case has major flaws, he attempts to point them out by conceding to my points, skewing my words. Let me explain what has happened... My opponent has dropped all of his contentions, backing up into the final, "Humans are willing". Besides the fact that he's dropped his entire case and has fallen back entirely upon a new contention, he's provided no conclusive evidence to support this claim. He also has not refuted the point I have given on natural instinct, a point which I wish to extend throughout the entire debate. At this point, my opponent rests upon an inconclusive contention with no evidence or logic backing it, and has already conceded one of his major contentions to Pro. With the debate over, it is your job, the judges, to make the best decision. Please, do not judge off of personal bias, judge off of debating prowess - look at who has debated their case fully, has not dropped their contentions, who has constantly hammered the same points throughout the debate so well the other could not and did not refute them. It is your job to vote logically, so I urge you to vote Pro. Thank you! ~HQ