Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found.

Profused thanks to Blah.Now then.Clarifications If my opponent believes he can lose conduct points to allowed to move the goal post, he is wrong. The resolution is very clear in that regard with my opponent's own first constructive round explicitly indicating the very same. Anything else fundamentally negates the affirmative position."alternatives to animals are sought out and integrated into studies whenever possible." - Source [1] R3This means that whatever alternative my opponent proposes must necessarily address the use of animal testing in parts where the progression of a study is impossible without animal testing. And because animal testing is irreplaceable in many studies and trials, no alternative can replace animal testing. Any venture for an alternative is a waste of time and moneyR4 - "Obviously we both agree that animal testing is irreplaceable. But that isn't the point." - BlahBut it is the point. By conceding that animal testing is irreplaceable, my opponent concedes that there is no alternative to animal testing. I assert that trying to find what doesn't exist is something that we should not be doing. In short, agreeing to animal testing's irreplaceability is nothing less than concession to this debate.This statement can't be any more clear:"we need to find another method to replace animal testing".This debate is and has always been about the complete erradication of animal testing in favor of an alternative.Contentions of AbsolutesCC-R1 - Mistreatment of Tested Animals.The rebuttal here addresses my opponent's claim that scientists "aren't at all careful" when testing on animals. The claim belongs to Blah, and it is to Blah to support tihs claim. My rebuttal first questions the relevance of my opponent's evidence (eyelid sewn shut) to the claim. My opponent does not address this side of the refutation and does not contest that his evidence is not conducive to his claim. The rebuttal secondly clearly indicates that research facilities hold themselves up to high standards of animal care by going above and beyond the necessary protocols of care (satisfying more than just the IACUC standards) to subscribe to higher standards such as those of the AAALAC. My opponent complains that I do not provide any examples of exact methodology of care in response to the following:"here are research veterinarians, husbandry specialists and animal health technicians – people who care deeply for animals – ensuring that animals in research receive the highest quality of care."Basically, he is asking me how veterinarians, husbandry specialists and animal health technicians - people who care deeply for animals - go about ensuring that animals in research receive the care that they do. I'm not sure I really need to do this, but here you go:Veterinarians are literally animal doctors[1] and provide medical care and services to animals. Animal husbandry is "the science of breeding and caring for farm animals."[2]. "Animal and pet health technicians have a wide range of job duties, serving and assisting vets in many procedures, ranging from trimming animals' nails to providing support during surgeries."[3]Contention 1 does not hold.CCR2 - Animal testing is unreliableMy opponent's concession to animal testing's irreplaceability undermines this argument. However I will still address the points made under this. My opponent asserts that the alternatives he's proposed were shown to be much more reliable, but in what aspects? It is not explained how these alternative methods are more reliable and in which areas they are more reliable. Reliable or not, my opponent concedes that animal testing is necessary. In the aspects in which animal testing cannot be replaced, there can be no alternative. Simple logic."if we want to succeed in biomedical research, we need to both fail in some cases AND get to the answer more quickly." - BlahIt has been indicated in earlier rounds that the rate of failure cited is a statistic that covers a combination of both animal-testingand non-animal testing. The combination of both fail at a high rate, and it is dishonest to use this statistic to claim that animal-testing is unreliable. Since it's a combination of both, I can just as easily claim that non-animal testing methods are unreliable which just shows the absurdity of my opponent's claim. Secondly, my opponent has not shown that results would be achieved in higher probability without animal testing. But again, my opponent concedes that animal testing is necessary, thus implicitly dropping this and all cases.Contention 2 does not hold.CCR 3 - The cost of animal testingMy counter to this point is simple. The benefits to global society provided by animal testing justify the costs, both physical and monetary, of animal-testing. I provided myriad statistics pointing explicitly to the diseases mitigated and parties aided by animal-testing including about 200 major animal diseases and a host of human diseases and procedures; a simple point that my opponent doesn't really address.Contention 3 does not hold.The affirmative case fails on every single contention. Let us now look into the response to the negative case:I claimed that any test on a living system (i.e. surgery) can only be represented by a test on another living system. My opponent suggests human testing as an alternative, to which I point out that humans are animals and that any argument made against animal testing, such as pain, suffering, costs, etc. can be made with human testing.My opponent resorts to the definition of animal-testing provided in R1, which is fair since I did waive all my ability to define terms. However, that human testing still would present all the same problems of animal testing remains uncontested. This is why my opponent's suggestion undermines his own case. Blah contradicts himself.Me - "we've been able to derive real results"Blah - "the real results have been derived only at very rare times."I've addressed the statistic which supports my opponents claim here many times. The 9 out of 10 statistic, which is the statistic of FDA's approval, covers both animal and non-animal tests in preclinical trials. Again, it is dishonest to attack the reliability of animal testing using these statistics because the preclinical trials that these statistics include both animal and non-animal trials.And again, 1:10 is a manageable ratio as far as trials go."That doesn't mean we can't derive better results."The argument is that there are some results that cannot be duplicated in any way accept with animal-testing (or human testing), hence animal-testing's irreplaceability, which my opponent has conceded. Better results in some areas, no results in others. Assertion or not, the logic is sound. You cannot achieve a dog without a pancreas without removing a pancreas from a dog. The effects of not having an organ can only be ascertained by, well, having something not have an organ. Preferably, this something is an animal, not a human. ""we should rely on alternatives that are much more trustworthy and productive""My opponent suggests alternatives, but does not show why they will be more productive or more trustworthy in general.ConclusionI'm simply going to say that my opponent failed to address the majority of my points including bot not limited to the benefits of animal testing as weighed with its cost, the reliability of his statistics and my general assault against them.Nary an affirmative contention holds any grounds.My opponent undermines the affirmative by suggesting human testing.Finally, my opponent concedes the majority of the negative case in arguing outside of the resolution and agreeing with a major negative contention which says that animal testing is irreplaceable.Vote CON.(P.S. links 5-10 of your first round are still broken.)Sources[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...