@Brandi phil,
I don't think I can help you here, but I am interested, and it would be nice if you can explain to me your two positions against the professor.
(i think it is more important that autonomy is relinquished. "animal testing is wrong" is a difficult and very controversial topic. you may have to
1. Prove human superiority one way or another. (through our necessity to prioritize each other over other species (?))
1.A. That our superiority gives us the right to utilize lower life forms.
1.A.i. How superior are we really if we have to utilize lower life forms?
2. Is ALL animal testing wrong, or some?
2.A. what is the criteria which allows us to determine which are bad and which are wrong?
2.A.i. Similar complications to hedonistic calculation; unpractical, complicated, and too subjective.
3. What is "Testing"? What is "Animal"? Etymological and federal law complications and controversies.
BUT if you are able to clear away all this shrubbery, it would be one of the most amazing papers that I would love to read. I am very interested in egalitarianism of ALL life forms, humans to bacteria.
On the other hand surrendering autonomy might be easier to prosecute and expand; how this attitude and method will affect the students for the rest of their lives and the effect it will have in shaping the future, using historical examples of this form of exercise (nazi. socialism. slavery.))
Trying to fight the "wrongness" of the professor through proving what he says is good and bad are wrong is not only difficult, but you'd be committing the same fallacy of claiming what is good and bad in your own opinion, which is exactly what you are trying to argue against. Fighting what he defines to be "hypocrite" is difficult as well, for, I personally, can't think of a way to claim his fallacy without yourself committing one as well by asserting an opinion. Has the professor's behavior been seen in the past? are these similar views and practices increasing or decreasing, why? is it good that it is increasing/decreasing, why? And you can pretty much make a compare and contrast paper of history and today and current views and consistencies that seem to be reoccurring, so your nor other's opinion is not involved, but harbor rather a "research paper" hue.)
Another ethical flaw I see in this situation is the education system that will allow this form of behavior of a professor to be allowed. An argument from this perspective would not be too different from the relinquishing of autonomy, but a more narrow, specialized argument.