Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no)

Perhaps PRO is not familiar with syllogisms and how they work. I wish he would have had done a little research about them and read my premises a little more carefully before saying things like, 'You are repeating yourself' or 'You are running out of points' and making himself look ignorant. Regardless, I move on to my counter rebuttals directly as I believe negating PRO's rebuttals will wrap up this debate for my side as the arguments he presents in his rebuttals are seeming to be the only substantial points currently in his case. Still, Pro has also made some insensitive assertions, and his stand continues to be quite unrealistic. My focus in this round would be pointing these out and tying up the loose ends. Counter Rebuttals: (I've indicated the statements made by PRO by using Italics and underling them) You say "torturing" animals but scientist don't go in front of an animal and just torch their eyes on purpose. And if they do they are not scientist they are psychopaths This claim is irrational and groundless and works on the bias that scientists will always adopt the best method that offers the least torment to animals. Scientists chose the best method that suits their experiments not the one that suits their subjects in their experiments i.e, animals. And if the experiment involves infliction of pain or anguish to animals, they'll do it anyway, simply because they are scientists and that is their work. Even manufacturing of simple cosmetic products such as shampoos involve great stress to animals. When testing shampoo on animals you don't simple rub it on their fur. It usually involves applying chemicals or products to animals’ shaved skin or eyes. In one of the most commonly used tests, researchers put chemicals into their eyes and record the state of the injured eye for 21 days.[1] This completely nullifies the argument by PRO that animals are not tortured in animal research. Obviously, as humans, we are primarily concerned with our own well-being, but how far should we go in our efforts? Animal Research mostly ends with the amputation, disfiguration or death of the animal involved all of which are immoral and can be accounted as cruel and brutal. Now death may be a fate that some of the animals in tests go through but the deaths don’t affect the population nor should they affect anybody. 5 million monkeys in the world and only 50 thousand are used in research not even 100 thousand its only 50. i think the monkey population isn't affected by the science. Population isn't the question here. Whether it be the whole population or a few thousands, animals are being tortured and put into extreme agony in the name of animal research. i don't see PETA or people like you crying for the insects that get tested on as well as animals. Insects aren't the part of the resolution here and is unassociated to the case but I would be glad to extend the same arguments for insects too, what other people care(PETA in this case) is irrelevant. Furthermore, I would like bring the reader's attention the fact that my argument about animals being equal to human being and not inferior, has not been addressed or refuted by PRO this means that my argument stands and that my adversary has conceded to it.This without any rational doubt clears my point that using animals for research and subjecting them to trauma,tortue and death is, just as the reasoning would be for humans , immoral and injust. You never said HOW expensive is it and because of that this is not a valid argument. I never said it because it was never necessary. I only needed to SHOW that animal testing was more expensive than the alternatives I suggested, and which i successfully did. i am not gonna do your homework for you. Also, you only mentioned 1 experiment that was "unreliable" there are BILLIONS of experiment [2]The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans.[2]Scientists use animals in biological and medical research more as a matter of tradition and not because animal research has proved particularly successful or better than other modes of experimentation.[3] Not only is animal experimentation morally wrong, but many of its failures have actually negatively affected people. One example is the failure of animal testing with the drug thalidomide that happened in the 1960s. According to the organization "Animal Friends Croatia," scientists had created thalidomide to help stop morning sickness for pregnant women. Even though it was tested on many species of animals before it could be purchased, "it caused an estimated 10,000 birth defects and thousands of fetal deaths worldwide." Many of the babies suffered from phocomelia, a disease that does not allow their limbs to develop correctly.[3]I think that sums up everything and satisfies PRO's queries. are you willing to risk YOUR life, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR SPOUSE, YOUR CHILDREN LIVES, to save animals that cause 3 million deaths of HUMAN people per year? This argument is fallacious and is PRO's attempt to appeal to emotions. I request PRO to back his claims with logical arguments instead of emotionally persuasive language with the purpose of drawing visceral feelings from the reader. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Addenda : Now that my main dissensions have been done and dusted I will now try to address dispel some of the myths that I've seen lots of people housing in their minds and using as arguments for animal testing.(I've indicated the statements by using Italics and underling them) [1]Animal testing exclusively involves mice and rats. Companies that conduct animal testing use many different species. After mice and rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, and dogs are the most commonly used animals. Animals can't feel pain. A recent experiment found that when mice are exposed to painful stimuli, they display facial expressions very similar to those humans show when in pain. Research has also found that many animals even suffer from depression, anxiety, and other psychological disorders in laboratories. All animals in laboratories have some legal protection. The only federal law that applies to animals used for testing is the Animal Welfare Act, which only regulates cage size, cleanliness, and food and water, but does not limit the procedures that can be done. This law excludes rats, mice, birds, cold-blooded animals, and animals commonly killed for food—so rats and mice, the animals most commonly used in toxicity tests, are not even given minimal protections. Animals are well cared for and are given anesthesia or painkillers during tests. Generally, animals are not given anesthesia even during extremely painful tests. Some animals get to live happy lives once they are not needed for any more testing. Every year, millions of animals used for testing are killed during the experiment or soon after. Testing cosmetics on animals tells us whether the products are safe. It’s difficult to interpret what animal test results mean for humans, because each species reacts differently to various substances. There aren't any alternatives to animal tests. There are many cheaper and faster alternative methods that produce more accurate information. Examples include artificial human skin and robotic technology that can screen thousands of chemicals at once using cells grown in the lab. Companies always use the most current testing methods. Many companies continue to test chemicals and products using animal-based tests developed in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s.[1] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: All of PRO's arguments for his case has been firmly rebutted and he already lost the debate when he failed to dispute and thus by default concede my point about animals being equal to human beings and not inferior.PRO has also only taken the medical side of animal research and has failed to address to other areas where animal research is involved such as cosmetics and consumer production, thus failing to meet his BoP. I thank PRO for organizing this debate and I would like him to know that I had a great time debating this subject. Cheers! Sources:[1]: https://www.dosomething.org...[2]: http://www.peta.org...[3]: http://northernstar.info...