Animal Testng

As the science technology develops, there also have been a lot of experiments been made as well - one of them is animal testing, which is what this whole debate is about. About 2.5 million animals are dying per year in United Kingdom, and 4 million animals die each year in Korea, only to do the animal testing. Greetings everyone on debate.org and MickeyMouse(Jennifer). I am very honored to participate in this debate. This opposition team is against the motion of animal testing. In this round, I am going to talk about 3 arguments why I do not think animal testing is necessary, as well as what the governments has said. First I will going to rebut what the proposition team has said, and second I will then support my 3 arguments. First of all, she had talked about that by the animal testing we could save people's lives. Yes, we COULD save them, but there is not that much possibilities to do so, since it is not accurate. The result of the animal testing usually does not always apply to actual surgeries humans get. Well, I will be talking about it later on when arguing my points. Second of all, she has told us that we should not feel sad for the animal which are tested because we have already eaten them as food. However, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose for them - the ones eaten and the ones tested- are completely different. Sorry for the animals, but we kill the animals(here I mean to say animals eaten by the people such as, pigs, cows, chicken, etc.) because we HAVE to eat. We, people, cannot live properly without eating those meat, only eating the vegetables. In contrast, for the experiments, there are more chices to test with, which means animals does not really have to be used when doing the experiments. And, animals to be eaten get euthanasia(mercy killing) when they die, so we can say the case for feeling sad is different. Third of all, about the alternatives. The government team was being neglegent for the fact there IS another alternatives existing right now, which is, stem cell research. It is apparently true that it is about a human, whose right is more important than that of animal. On the other hand, since the stem cell research is very effective(since stem cell research is the test with actual human genes which applies almost 100%,right?), the scientists can spent the fewer cells(or we could just say 'lives;) for the successful surgery result. In this way, we can keep both rights and effectiveness by using this alternatives. Or else scientists can keep try doing the computer models, because the technology is keep developing. Now I would like to move on to my arguments why I believe animal testing has negative aspects rather than affirmative points. They are : 1. Animals has rights that even humans have to respect 2. Animal testing is not accurate 3. It can damage ecosystem, or the nature itself(a lot of animals get harmed a lot) Firstly, about the rights. To tell the truth, human is also part of the animals but having more developed brain, meaning that both they are the same. So why do we kill them without respecting them? It is true that they have less-developed skills since their brains are not that good. However, it can be true that they are able to think and feel. They can fear, they can be happy, they can be sad, and so on. Just because they cannot express what they feel, we should not do whatever we want to them. For example, there became such a big issue on the Internet in Korea and Japan because there were some photos about rabbits with no eyes, dogs with blooded body, monkeys with mouth of each side ripped off. In addition, the animals get tested when they are conscious. Just suppose that we are that animals being used for the experiments, then we would know how cruel that is. Secondly, it is about accuracy. As I said at the rebuttal, animal testing is not as accurate as we think. According to Seoul University, it has said that the possibility for usual scientists/doctors to make the result 100% successful takes too much time, and even they spent a lot of time, only about half(50%) are failed to get the successful result. I will now mention another example. Although Grass(which are plants) and humans have 50% same genes, look very different, even having different system in them. Besides, even though half of their genes are same, humans are alive and grass is abiotic ones. Then, even for the animals that gets tested-let's say about primates such as monkeys, which is the closest one to human-they have about 99% same genes in them. However, ladies and gentleman, the 1% that is different from them, can make the huge change. The primates body can reflex differently from how human's body reflexes, making the surgery result different. If it does so, it means that for the actual surgery that sick patients are taking, it can give harmful effects on them as well. Thirdly, I am going to talk about the nature problem. Not only do garbages and polluted gas harm the environment we all live in, but also animals getting damaged can harm it. One of them is about ecosystem. If people(here, doctors and scientists) get a lot of animals, there will be fewer and fewer animals consisting an ecosystem. Then, in a long term, the lack of animals number may give bad consequence for that ecosystem, causing other kinds of organisms to die out. Also, as I said at the first argument, there can be the animals without proper organs. For example, a rabbit which got surgery, its offsprings can get 6 legs because of animal testing. Then, the animals with weird appearance can increase a lot, which doesn't affect that good for the environment. In conclusion, because of the rights, accuracy, and the ecosystem, I am proud to oppose the motion strongly. Thank you..