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

Thank you, as well, you have truly stimulated me in the sense that I have my debating skills so, regardless if I win or lose, I will have gained a valuable tool, thank you again. "No, this really is an ignorant conclusion. You can't assume animals have the same, or even close to the same level of thought as humans. In fact, my definition of thought was more of abstract thought, which I mentioned early. I'm in agreeance with you on a certain statement, "a thought process". A single thought process does not mean they have the same level, or the same amount of thought processes that a human has. Learning does not mean thought, micro-evolution amongst animals is proven - so therefore a finches beak can learn and can think because it evolved in response to the shape of the flowers that it sucked honey from. This is illogical, and it really holds no relevance over the purpose of this debate. My opponent is trying to pin a conditioned response as reason, when it clearly is not. " 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. "My opponent completely drops the argument presented. He simply says, "it's from a journalist" therefore it must be undeniable fact? No! As I have shown, my opponent skews his words. I rephrased it, presented my argument, and my opponent completely dropped it. Please extend that argument throughout this round. " 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. "This argument, besides the fact that it falls under the 2nd scenario given and requires no extra scenario, is ridiculously based upon the notion that my opponent has tried to infer that animals can make concious decisions. CONDITIONED RESPONSE IS NOT A CONCIOUS DECISION. A conditioned response is equal to dropping a marble down a chute, it will fall down. Conditioned response shows an inkling of intelligence, however in no way does it classify animals close to human intelligence. It's incredibly ignorant of the idea of reason to assume this. " I have already accepted this but it is, as it still remains, a more suitable biproduct of the snd scenario. "My opponent is skewing words in an appeal to the general audience, however I'm not arguing the morality of experimenting on animals, I'm arguing the morality of it versus the other available options. The most moral action is the action that ensures survival of the specie and well being of the specie, and as you can see I have clearly shown that animal-testing, the idea of animal testing, is morally acceptable within the given scenario. Testing on mentally handicapped people would not ensure survival, which we have accepted as the most important issue within a specie. Furthermore, my opponent makes many wild claims about laws, treatment, etc etc and posts a single video and a single quote to undeniable support his case. This is ludicrous, considering the fact that he said he was NOT discussing the United States when both of his links were within the United States. .. I fail to see the logic behind this" 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. "So for the crystallization of my points, and in order to remove the falsehoods my opponent is trying to pin on my case, let me explain my entire case in the following paragraph. There are three scenarios in which to test products: 1) Animal testing, in order to ensure the well being and survival of the human specie. 2) Human testing (regardless of willingness), for the following reason. 3) No testing. " We've been through this, taking a risk with something that has no say otherwise versus a willing candidate is an obvious choice. 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. "Finally, we are not arguing the morality of testing period. We're arguing the morality of animal testing versus the other options. As I have clearly shown, the other options are against natural instinct and what is most important to the human race. " 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. 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.