Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found.

Thank you for the amazing and challenging debate, Beginner!By the way, if the links are broken, just refresh the links and they'll come up again.==Clarifications=="If my opponent believes he can lose conduct points to allowed to move the goal post, he is wrong." - OpponentThat means I'm not wrong, because that was not in the least what I was thinking. I was thinking that due to my two faulty sentences in my first constructive round, and with the confusion, it would be justified to deduct conduct points from me.But that doesn't mean the resolution deserves to be changed mid-debate just because I made those two faulty sentences. The resolution is the resolution, not where either my opponent or I went off-topic. ""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." - OpponentWe can't be sure here. The source I had cited in the previous round says the opposite and that the alternatives are often unused. [1] "R4 - "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." - OpponentAgain, just because I said something different in the debate, doesn't mean the resolution itself changes. That only means I was off-topic. But now I'm not. My opponent disregards literally every line of reasoning made for why an alternative is different to a replacement. Extend this. "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 eradication of animal testing in favor of an alternative." - OpponentThe definitions in round 1 are prioritized over what we say in the debate. Yes, that statement is very explicit, but that statement doesn't change anything about the resolution or the definitions. Voters may deduct conduct points, but the arguments still remain undecided. Literally, my opponent wants to change the resolution with something stated mid-debate. This is an action that is worthy of a deduction of conduct itself.What's more, as stated previously, there were only TWO sentences that stated so, and even then they were just concluding sentences, albeit faulty ones, which didn't affect my arguments in any sense. We should prioritize the definitions first.==Rebuttal 1: Contention of Absolutes==My opponent states that his rebuttal refutes my statement on how scientists "aren't at all careful" when testing on animals. However what he fails to realize is that mistreating animals isn't careful. at all.My adversary then questions the relevance of my evidence where the eye of a macaque monkey was sewn shut. I don't see how this is irrelevant, because his eye was literally SEWN SHUT. Why, for example, couldn't the scientists find another, safer way of having his eyes stay closed for the test? Why couldn't they try the test safely on humans instead?The final part of his rebuttal shows how staff take high standard care for the animals in testing. However, his evidence proves irrelevant. This is because he only states how the staff are medically taking care of the animals, which isn't the real point here. Let us see this snapshot in a film showing scientists mistreating beagles [2]: Here we see that a staff member is literally holding a dog's head in place without any care.Obviously this is only one of the examples of animal cruelty/mistreatment. Here are more examples [1]:"Animals are infected with diseases that they would never normally contract, tiny mice grow tumors as large as their own bodies, kittens are purposely blinded, rats are made to suffer seizures, and primates’ skulls are cut open and electrodes are implanted in them. Experimenters force-feed chemicals to animals, conduct repeated surgeries on them, implant wires in their brains, crush their spines, and much more. After enduring these terrifying, painful procedures, animals are then usually dumped back into a cage without any painkillers. Video footage from inside laboratories shows animals who cower in fear every time someone walks by their cages. They don’t know if they will be dragged from their prison cells for an injection, blood withdrawal, a painful procedure, surgery, or death. Often they see other animals killed right in front of them." - Peta [1]Obviously one of the reasons we must find an alternative for animal testing is because animal testing consists of animal cruelty and mistreatment.(By the way, I know there is a slight hint of Appeal to Emotion in the quote. Just focus on the relevant information.)==Rebuttal 2: Animal testing is unreliable==Again, my opponent claims that irreplaceability is the concession of all arguments, which I had proven false above and in previous rounds.My opponent then claims that I have not shown how non-animal testing is more reliable, which is true. However, this job is simple. Here we have an example [3]:"For example, to assess skin irritation alternatives such as Reconstituted Human Epidermis, like the skin model EPISKIN, can be used. These tests use reconstituted human skin donated from cosmetic surgery and have been shown to be more effective than the original cruel rabbit Draize skin test that they replace." - Cruelty Free International [3]The proposed alternatives have been proven to be more relevant to humans as opposed to the animal system-based test method. "It has been indicated in earlier rounds that the rate of failure cited is a statistic that covers a combination of both animal-testing and 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." - OpponentThis isn't specific. The non-animal testing method could, regardless, have been the slightest bit more reliable, and has been proven to be. Just because they are both at a high failure rate does not mean one, meaning the non-animal testing methods, is a lower failure rate than the other. The lower failure rate has been shown to belong to non-testing methods. Thus this contention remains affirmed.==Rebuttal 3: The Costs of animal testing==My opponent claims that the benefits to global society justify the costs. However, my opponent fails to realize that there are cheaper ways to biomedically experiment without having to inflict harm on animals, as well as getting better results and thus further reduces the price on experimentation. All of these were shown above. This is much more efficient and convenient.Even then, the benefits to global society alone do not justify the costs. Let me reiterate the statement that those $16,000,000,000 was spent for animal testing in the US ALONE. Animal testing is done worldwide, and so the costs would be much higher than even $16,000,000,000. And yet more harm is inflicted on animals regardless of the low reliability of animal testing. Thus my opponent's rebuttal does not hold.All things considered, the benefits of finding an alternative to animal testing does not hold. ==Counter-rebuttal 1: Human alternatives==My opponent's claim that every single argument that I made against animal testing, and arguments against it in general, could be made on human testing. However, this is false. My opponent fails to remember that we are looking for an ALTERNATIVE to animal testing. Should the test inflict excessive harm or pain, we can switch back to animal testing in those cases. Otherwise we should use human testing to research.But what's most important is that we use other alternatives which do not use any sort of animal at all. This way absolutely NO pain or harm is inflicted, and we get better results at a lower cost. This should be clear by now. ==Counter-rebuttal 2: Reliability==I refer to my counter for contention 2.==Counter-rebuttal 3: Duplication==That is literally why the resolution is worded the way it is. If we can't duplicate the results we find in animal testing without animal testing itself, then we use animal testing itself. But in other cases, it would be more justified to use proposed alternatives.==Counter-rebuttal 4: How reliable are these alternatives?==My opponent falsely claims that I never explain how the proposed alternatives work. The brief summaries of how the alternatives work (above) should be explanations in themselves when you read the rest of my arguments.==Dropped Arguments==Extend the majority of my rebuttals that my opponent never responded to, as well as the arguments made in previous rounds.My opponent must not respond to these dropped arguments in his last round, since they have been dropped throughout. Any response to these cannot be countered and must be disregarded.==Conclusion==I am very frustrated with Con's case. His entire case relies on the fact that animal testing is irreplaceable when that isn't even the topic at hand. My opponent even claims that I am the one arguing outside the resolution when in fact my opponent does not give any relevant reasoning as to why I am. The definitions were very clear - and it seems my opponent is trying to make strawman arguments in order to twist the resolution into something completely different, and something that would give Con the automaic win, which is why I worded the resolution that way to make it fair.Disregard all my opponent's arguments that have been shown by me to be off topic.Vote Pro.[1] http://www.peta.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[3] http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org...;