Debbie never claims that any of Carl’s premises are inaccurate. She doesn't deny that researchers are required to complete pain protocols for animals, and that such protocols are not required for operations on humans. Instead, Debbie questions Carl’s conclusion by pointing out additional information he does not consider about the difference between humans and animals.

This is accurate. Debbie points out the relevant difference that humans, unlike animals, can be told about the pain ahead of time and can decide for themselves whether or not to go through it. This difference undermines Carl's analogy between experiments on animals and operations on humans, which is the basis for his conclusion.

This is inaccurate. Carl doesn't appeal to sentimentality, and Debbie never claims that he does.

This is inaccurate. It is Carl, not Debbie, whose argument relies on an analogy. Debbie's argument exposes a problem with Carl's analogy.

Debbie never says anything about a claim in Carl's argument being impossible to prove or disprove.