Animal Testing should continue for medical research

Interesting. I was expecting my opponent to refute this, but it's more than likely some personal issue kept Nidhogg from posting his argument. Very well, I may as well capitalize on the opening my opponent has left me, as well as possibly extending my contentions.To reiterate responses to my opponent's points:To "Argument 1"--My opponent is not actually advancing his case, he is merely pre-emptively trying to counter one of my potential arguments. Even if his point is true, it has absolutely no bearing on his case. Merely because animals in labs "suffer no more cruelty than the wild has to offer" doesn't mean that we should subject them to testing. Now, if my opponent were to clarify his argument as 'animal testing is less cruel than the wild,' then he would actually be making a relevant argument, and I would respond to it summarily. In the absence of that, this is nothing more than a point made in the fallacy of relevance--ignoratio elenchi.To "Argument 2"--Again, this argument fails to address the resolution in that it is not advancing the Proposition's case. All it is doing is stating that all drugs intended to help animals have to go through some kind of testing--not necessarily animal testing, as my R2 statements have shown. I'd ask my opponent to keep his arguments on-topic, but that would narrow him down to merely refuting MY contention (as his "Argument 3" is in direct contradiction to my main contention), so I'm fine if he brings up one or more new arguments in our last round. Of course, that would make it nigh-impossible to prove the resolution, but as of yet, he's done nothing to dispute my contention (even forfeiting a round).Furthermore, my opponent does not prove the causality--that animal testing is inherently more efficacious than other kinds of testing to determine systemic toxicity or cytotoxicity. Now, I understand that I am severely weakening my case when I mention this, but sources do exist to suggest that a systemic approach is a prerequisite to cytotoxicity testing. However, let me note that these studies merely state that a similar chemical treatment had to have gone through systemic testing, and while this narrows the field of effective experimentation, it proves it nonetheless. I hope my opponent responds this round, as I am eager to have this become not a one-sided debate.To "Argument 3"--Let me refute this with my R2 research. I can provide more if necessary, but as my opponent has not made any attempt to refute my points, I do not wish to potentially weaken my side further at this point. Anyways, I have already proved that cytotoxicity testing (cell testing) is superior to animal testing, and that adequately refutes my opponent's contention while advancing my own case.This, therefore, means that the major issue in this debate will be whether or not my opponent deigns to contend this point. If not, then I have adequately fulfilled my burden of proof by providing a reasonable, efficacious, and superior alternative to animal testing. If so, then I entreat him to do so, but I shall respond in due force.Now, to finally extend a little logic on behalf of my orphan contention in the issue of animal testing's efficacy in general, not as compared to cytotoxicity testing.In R2, I stated that my opponent's own source (and only linked one, at that) provides the statement: "Animal testing generally costs an enormous amount of money, as the animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with drugs or a similar experimental substance. [4]"". . .an enormous amount of money. . ." In the absence of my opponent proving that animal testing is inherently better than non-animal testing, this directly contends my opponent's argument that alternatives cost a lot of money. Unless, of course, my opponent wishes to suggest that these alternatives cost more, in which case I demand to see the evidence. This shifts the entire "cost" argument over to Con's side until--and not before--my opponent proves otherwise. What does all of this mean? First and foremost, my opponent has utterly failed (so far) to provide a solid, relevant, and evidenced contention in support of animal testing. While I'm not arguing that the ENTIRE burden of proof lies on my opponent--it doesn't--I am arguing that my opponent has the obligation to provide at least one evidenced, relevant, solid, and substantial contention in support of animal testing. Nidhogg has not done that.Secondly, my opponent has not made any refutation towards my arguments, and until he disproves them, they stand. Now, Nidhogg did forfeit his round, potentially due to personal disturbance, and I'm willing to let this go, but I'd like Nidhogg's R4 argument to at least refute my points, advance his own, and cite substantive (and clear) evidence.All of this should lead the audience, at this moment, to a single conclusion. There is no way that Nidhogg can fairly win this debate, not at the rate he is going. Thus, Nidhogg needs to prove to the audience that he has won this debate, on top of the points I have presented so far. This may seem like a cheap attempt to get him to prove something unnecessary, but after all, the point of this debate is to win, right? Therefore I either entreat Nidhogg to prove why he has won (if he has) or to extend his arguments irrefutably, or some combination of both. Citation:[4]: http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk......I await my opponent's response.