Animal Testing (Joke Debate)

"Ah see you misunderstand the reason of the poor being poor. Let me explain. Once one is rich their purpose is to help pay for others, once one is poor their purpose is to help us find out what's safe, and what's not. I do not argue that the poor are poor for a reason, they are poor to make the middle class feel better, by testing out products they want to buy. The homeless use their propaganda to make normal middle class citizens to give them everything, while they don't even work, and if they do nothing productive. " --> The purpose of the poor is not to be the scratching post of the companies aimed at the hopelessly consumerist middle class. They are designed to make people feel better about themselves, which is clear. I may feel inadequate, but seeign a poor person will make me feel better about myself. However, seeing these people dressed in the latest trends destroys the illusion created by the powers that be through the minimum wage, and thus societys order will collapse unto itself, resulting in mass anarchy. My opponent ought to reconsider this position, of saving a few animals in exchange for anarchy in society. "Who needs a car wash anyway? Testing on the homeless gives you just the right shade, while at the same time helping you conscience. " --> How would it help my conscience, knowing homeless people, who are humans, are being pampered for free while mindless animals are being unharmed? I want to, along with the rest of society, to see poor beggars suffering from malnutrition and hundreds of diseases while animals have toxic products tested on them. "My opponent believes that by taking animals out of the testing no one will dress up monkeys or use photoshop ever again? I believe people would still keep the comedic effect without endangering poor animals to what the homeless should undergo. In fact seeing homeless people test out your products may even ad to the comedic industry. " --> A homeless guy in a suit is in no way funnier than a monkey in a suit. I mean, how is this funny? . http://www.alivenotdead.com... While the pictures of funny animals won't stop, it will be reduced to trickle of poor photoshops by basement dwellers such as myself. "Reason for using prisoners, mostly ones sentenced to death or life. Plus who gives a flying f*ck about murderers? You think the mother of the victim would be upset that the criminal died testing possible cures for AIDS which her youngest son got because a doctor screwed up? The criminal should die a death that saves them of their sins. Not against any God, if he's a murderer with religion he's most likely Christian and will most likely be saved anyway, but his sins to society. " --> And I'm pretty sure the loving, caring mother of the person on death row doesn't want their son subjected to an inhumane death through a thousands and one dangerous vaccines. She would be more able to stomach the idea of these being tested on halfwit squirrel, who unlike murders, are in abundance. Science requires tests to be repeated with very few if any external factors. Murderers, benign human, are often very different. Squirrels, while different, are in greater numbers so finding identical squirrels is less of an issue. Furthermore, what does my opponent propose when her death row deterrent results in a near rime-free utopia with only the odd murderer every so often? Then what do we do? Animals can be kept in captivity and breeded. Prisoners, not so much, but while humans can, you can't breed a murderer. "Prisoners would lose all rights under this system and instead we will poor bleach into their eyes. The ones that do not die from testing would then be placed to boil so that we can compare their body to that of a normal person that was not tested on that was also put to boil their skin off. They'd have no right to life either way. " --> How is that in anyway productive to testing products on them? Why will companies need to know the effect of bleach in a persons eyes, let alone hundreds of murderers yes? Has my opponent also considered people who are sentenced to death by mistake? Also, if prisoners were to go through such painful experiments, may would commit suicide ratehr than die a slow, painful death. " That may seem amusing at first but imagine the horrors of a hobo bunny, it would be 10x worse than bugs bunny! This outrageous stop, AIDS leads to hoboism which is dangerous for anyone to see because it activates the part of your brain that shouldn't exist. Hobos are taking over our minds, they are to blame for tragedies all over the world such as global warming, poverty, depression, Justin Beiber, worthlessness, and 9/11. We must prevent the spread of hoboism to our cute bunny societies because then the hobo bunnies would produce 7 hobo bunnies at a time! The hobos would multiply in them so we must instead use criminals so that this deadly disease in society can be cured. " --> Hobos aren't the cause of that silly, the Illuminati and Liberal Media are. Also, hobo bunnies and criminals are not only sub-human, they're the hobos and criminals of the rabbit world my opponent wants to test products on in the human world, so my opponent must concur they would be prime specimens to test products on, no? "It would be hilarious to watch a prison KING instead wear the make up and be humiliated. As far as the queens go perhaps we should use them in AIDS testing too anyway. " --> A prisoner king wearing such products would be dethroned, and be relegated to someone's b*tch, making them a queen. And the fact my opponent wants to create the scenario of AIDS free paradise-prison for these gays shocks me. We must also consider that if my opponent wants to test AIDS vaccines on these prisoners, and they DON'T work, then we'll have an AIDS epidemic, thus killing off all prisoners, creating a crime free utopia, and leading us to the need for animal testing. Again, my opponents logic invalidates her case :). "Oh sure they should work hard, they should have to test products run as fast as they can work as hard as they can, all in the name of testing products effectiveness. What if you had more productive hom/bo prisoners? They would be even greater then the slave now a days. " --> That severely limits the range of products on prisoners then if they are working. Testing a pair of Prada high heels on working prisoners will reduce their work rate severely. There's only so many products, such as military boots and nike tracksuits that can be tested in this scenario without hampering the valuable work of prisoners. "Medical costs are irrelevant seeing as how the prisoners under my system of being tested, would lose all legal rights to a doctor unless they can pay out of pocket. " --> You do realise a sick prisoner is one which cannot be tested on, or if they are tested one will give back unreliable results? The feedback on the taste of food products won't matter if they have the runs. And given that we're giving them products which are being tested and therefore unreliable, medical care is essential to make sure that they can be continually tested on. And that's where cost comes into play. Withotu medical care, a lot of prisoners will die, so it's more economical to test on animals. And given that aniamls are in greater abundance, medical care won't be completely essential. We can even make live streams of animals suffering and make lots of money of these live streams and video compilations of horses crapping out their own intestines. And in resposne to my opponents fianl argument, if their rights are forfeit why would they accept money that will probably be stolen by guards to start with? Humans are more likely to fight back than say, a chihuahua which is easily subdued with some food and a noose. Back to mah opponent.