We should have lab rats in labatories

Thank you for writing your arguments.Observations1. Con is saying that this is about rats not mice. This is true. It is just that I am more familiar with mice so I accidentally wrote mice instead of rats. Voters and also Whiteflame should not mind that. It is just a thing I wrote wrong. 2. The burden of proof is shared equally, but mostly on me.Rebuttals1. In Pro's first arguments which was Harms to Animals, I will just write it here" 1. Harms to other animalsAgain, looking back at the resolution, all I have to do is affirm that we should continue to use rats. Con appears to be very concerned about mice. If rats are pulled out of labs, then those labs will simply replace them with mice. If they don"t replace them with mice, they"ll replace them with one of the dozens of other animals they have access to: dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits, pigs, and primates, for example.[] By using lab-grown rats, I"m reducing harms to most of these populations, many of which aren"t bred in the lab."This is true. However why rats? There should not be any rats in these labatories. This is true. Even though it harms any other animals, why do we need to harm rats? Right now Pro missed that case and just said it harms other animals not how those things that harms those rats.This is an brief explanation. Pro is saying in this argument that if we do not use rats, we have to use other species and they might get harmed. However, don't the rats get harmed then? They get harmd too. Right now Pro is saying they don't care of those rats if they die or not in the labs and saying it harms other animals when rats are animals too and they should not be harmed. This si just not that I hate or like rats, (In my opion I don't really like rats) but this is plain nonsense even though it hurt those animals, why wouldn't it hurt rats?2. This is Pro's second argument. I will post it in my argument and rebut it." 2. Importance of rats to studiesI pointed this out earlier, but rats are a very genetically malleable organism. What that means is that there are multiple mutants of rats that have been bred in order to study certain diseases in rats that otherwise wouldn"t be present. This is impossible with most other organisms, mainly due to limitations in breeding and transgenic technologies. Rats, therefore, represent a necessary model for studying disease states and treatments, particularly because their behavior and physiology is more relevant to humans than other rodents.[1] It"s for this reason that the amount of scientific literature that has been produced using rats as a model species is staggeringly large, with rats and mice making up 95% of all animal research and rats being used 50% more often than mice.[1, 7] We can attribute the vast majority of pharmaceuticals and treatment methods to rats first and foremost."Okay. Pro's point of this argument was that these rats are physically changed so that they get tested easily. However, the rats can't really change. They can't really make them good for experiments, it is just that they are better than others. Right now I am saying that there should not be those lab rats because of the bad and cruelty.3. This is Pro's third argument. I will paste it in my argument" 3. Why we should careWe should be most concerned with the continued survival and quality of life of our own species. Our preservation should come first and foremost, and as long as that requires doing studies in other organisms, that"s what we have to do. I know this sounds anthropocentric, but Con isn"t really seeking to protect all animals anyway since he"s just trying to prevent scientists from harming this particular rodent. If he really cared, he"d be extending this to all life forms tested in the laboratory, though that would require that we consider the countless insects and even bacteria tested in labs across the country. He provides no particular reason why rats are special, and we cannot realistically stop all research with every form of life that exists without dooming humanity to death by the next plague that comes our way. Sure, in a perfect world, no creature would have to endure harm, but we don"t live in a perfect world, and we cannot function solely based off of a sense of empathy with some lab-grown rats.The facts are as follows: nearly every medical breakthrough in recent history has resulted directly from research using animals, particularly when it comes to vaccines, cancers, and heart disease.[8] Rats make up a substantial proportion of these. The alternatives for animal testing simply aren't ready to replace them. Moreover, even if we care about animals, the research helps them as well, offering treatments to many diseases that afflict both them and humans.[9] The benefits are clear." Right now what Pro is saying that we should protect these humans and have no choice but to use these rats. In the Status Quo I forgot to write about, these days the rats are in danger with these labs, he is saying there is no much of an choice to change the Status Quo. Our team will change it.Now I will go in this rebbutals of this argument of Pro's Why is people's living the most important. How about other animals like us? Just to say that is really rude and we are not taking care of these animals at all.With my rebuttals, I will hand this debate back to Pro.