animal experimentation

I can't say I've ever seen anyone fail to respond to as many points their opponent brings up as you just have. Every claim and argument I have presented has been ignored besides one. So be it. I leave it to the judges to decide whether the claims I've made have merit. I submit my opponent fails to bring them up because she possesses no argument against them. I don't know why she would otherwise fail to address them. This debate has 10k character limit. She had plenty of room remaining. 1. Valuing Humans over Other Species I can't help but notice you also did not respond to the situation I've presented. If you had to choose between pushing a button to kill a human or 2 deer at gunpoint, Which would you choose? What about a human or 10 deer? I submit that if you fail to address this again the judges should know that the answer is in opposition to the point you seek to submit to us. If you act as you say and value the life of animals the same as a human, The choice between 1 deer or 1 human would be a difficult one for you, Much less 2+ on one side. People in vegetative states from accidents are not persons anymore. We kill them all the time. There's no reason not to. Those who were born or have significant impairments can still often do intellectual things animal cannot. Largely, We assume they have sentient thought and consciousness because we do. Again, Intelligent animals shouldn't be experimented on. There's nothing wrong with less intelligent animals being experimented on. Morals are all arbitrary to some extent. We have to justify them. You're telling me that putting value on intelligence and critical thinking is a worse line than a line you fail to specify. You've brought up 1. Pain and 2. Life. Neither of these are better lines than intelligence inherently. I have already been over this. Life is not unique to the animal kingdom. According to the logic you currently use, Why value an animal life over an insect or a plant? Pain is also not unique to the animal kingdom, And I've addressed it as well. I presume you wouldn't stop valuing a person that could not feel pain. The problem you bring up with my valuing the capacity for sentient thought, Critical thinking, Consciousness, Et cetera, Is that I have to value some humans above others? While this is not necessary for the sake of the argument (animal experimentation and valuing all humans above most other animals) it is easy for me to remain consistent on this. Yes, If given the choice between killing a dumb human and an intelligent one if I had no other information about the individuals the choice would be easy for me. It wouldn't take a second of consideration. I would kill the dumb individual instead. This is hardly controversial. In critical situations we would preserve doctors and scientists instead of laypeople. There's not much of a need for this to come into play. The world has enough resources for us to take care of all humans, And little research necessarily requires human sacrifices. There are already humans that sign up to be test subjects and are compensated for this kind of thing, And animals that can take the fall for even the most lowly human. My values are consistent. Are yours? I have seen no sign of consistency from you. I will appreciate your position and agree with your hold on it if you show that you are consistent, But I don't even know what you specifically value at this point. Your thoughts are unclear. Do you value life itself? Persons? Pain? You are throwing out many terms and condemning a well-thought position while failing to present a clear idea of something which I or the readers could replace it with. So please, Tell us what YOU value, And answer the question. 2 deer or 1 human? The rest of my claims and arguments still stand. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht