Animal Testing

Animals rights:First, my opponent literally is just ignoring every refutation I've put against him by just restating his case and not responding to anything I've said. Cross-apply the Cohen evidence I read last round that says that animals cannot be placed at the same capacity as humans because they are incapable of grasping ethical concepts and premises, thus making them unable to enter a community of moral agents, which would be necessary to gain rights (i.e. not to be tested on). This goes literally unresponded to. All my opponent is saying is that if they look like us and they act like us then they must be the same, but that's unresponsive to the warrants in Cohen which pre-empt those causesSecond, he can't say that "Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically," in one section, but argue the point in his case that "Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects.". That's literally the exact opposite of his case, and actually benefits my side since if they are anatomically and physiologically similar, then that makes them perfect test subjects.Animals suffering is necessary to testing:My opponent is trying to use the very conclusion that I'm challenging to justify his arguments. He's saying that because animals will suffer and die and all this stuff that it makes animal testing immoral, but ignores literally everything I say about how this doesn't have to be something inherent within the system, and that this is something that we can fix without getting rid of animal testing. Why do certain animals have to be excluded from federal protection against maltreatment? Let's include them. Why do we have to kill the animals we test on? Give them homes in habitats where they can live the rest of their natural lives in comfort post-testing. He's provided no warrant for why animals have to be killed, for why animals have to suffer more than absolutely necessary, or even suffer at all, and this is the very assumption that I'm attacking and trying to say "This doesn't have to happen in animal testing. let's fix it!". But, he never responds to it, so hold it against him as conceded. Alternatives to Animal testing:Why must my opponent ignore literally all of my counter-arguments and just try to restate his case to rebuild his case? Cross apply the Murali evidence which says that not only are the alternatives that he proposes already in use in the current system, meaning that they're providing us results when in conjunction with animal testing, but also the part that says that animal testing is still superior to these alternatives as a method of testing ("And as powerful as modern computers are, there’s still simply no comparison – the idea of successfully simulating the complexity present in organism-level biological systems is a pipe dream at present."). Moreover, cross-apply where I said that even if he's showing that there are good alternatives to animal testing, that doesn't mean that animal testing is bad. Just because driving to work is more efficient than walking to work, that doesn't mean that walking to work is bad. So even if you're buying this point, it's not sufficient to negate. Animals and the Mentally handicapped:Again, another day another ignored response. Cross apply the Frey evidence which establishes the differences between the mentally handicapped and animals which justifies why we don't experiment on the mentally handicapped and do experiment on animals.Furthermore, cross apply the Cohen evidence which explains another difference. Even the mentally impaired are capable of grasping ethical premises, whereas animals are physically unable to. This means that the mentally impaired are capable of entering a community of moral agents, which is how rights are distributed, whereas animals are incapable of doing this. Sending a messageOne, this is literally irrelevant. It would send a good message if everyone who smoked cigarettes just trashed every box of smokes they had and the world became 100% tobacco free, but that doesn't give a single reason why we ought to. But two, I can do this under affirming. My opponent's been blind to me trying to make this clear throughout the entire debate, so let me state it really plainly and simply (and in bold letters to make it pop): I WANT TO HELP ANIMALS TO ENSURE THAT THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF SUFFERING IS INFLICTED ON THEM, IF ANY NEEDS TO BE AT ALL, AND THAT IF SCIENTISTS EXPERIMENTING ON ANIMALS MISTREAT THEM, THAT THEY ARE HELD MORALLY AND LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.Are we all good now? So in short, I can send the same good message.My case!Yay we can actually have responses and clash now! He made responses to my case! To go through them (I'll just use the same Roman Numeral system he used for simplicity) - i - One, he provides absolutely no warrant. Two, my sources explain how animal testing has led to the development of these other factors that cure diseases. I never make the claim that because we poked around in a cow for a little while we found a syringe with a vaccine for AIDS in it. ii - One, cross-apply all my responses for why the alternatives he provided suck and why animal testing is still a superior way of gaining information. Two, cross-apply all my responses for why alternatives existing doesn't prove that animal testing is bad.iii - This is literally the same thing with his alternatives. He provides no reason why his alternatives will provide us with anything in the future.iv - One, literally irrelevant. Animal testing has made a massive impact on society and given us some of the greatest medical advances we've ever known. Two, that's not true. The impact of animal testing through certain cancer treating medicines is still felt today, meaning that there's most certainly significance in the status quo.v - .....okay? I'm saying that by testing on animals we've gotten major medical advances and can continue to do so. What's your point?vi and vii (since they're the same essentially) - One, okay this is annoying. You literally said above how animals were similar anatomically and physiologically, and now you're taking it back. Make up your mind. Two, actually I'll make it up for your. Cross-apply the Murali 2 evidence where I show how animals are still useful for testing certain medications and their impacts on humans (" Say someone is developing a drug that should act on opioid receptors. The questions researchers ask are – does the drug target what it’s supposed to, and then, does that give rise to a benefit in treating a disease? To this end, mouse opioid receptors work just as well as human ones.")And, don't let him actually extend on his rebuttals in his next speech because I won't get a chance to respond to them since I have to give up the last round, as his round format indicates. Since I won't get a chance to respond to anything he says in the next round, don't let him make new arguments and responses in his last speech.Summary of the Debate:To put it simply, my opponent hasn't done nearly enough work on his side of the flow to justify doing away with animal testing. He hasn't responded to a single attack against his case that I've made, rather just insists on restating his points without actually respodning to my refutations. Hold this against him.At best, since I'm responding to his refutations and he's not responding to mine, you're prefering my arguments because I'm actually creating clash in the debate.Moreover, he's not doing enough work to show that the harms of animal testing are something that we can't solve back for. He's just making the assumptions that animals are unable to not suffer from testing, and that animals have to die when they're tested on, which is the exact assumption I'm challenging. Furthermore, he's not responding to my objections that alternatives aren't actually going to do anything different from what we're doing under animal testing. And even if he is, he isn't responding to my argument that just because there's an alternative doesn't prove that what we're doing now is needing change. And, he still hasn't provided any kind of sources or citations, so you're inherently prefering my arguments as more credible. In the (unlikely) event that you're not sure who's arguments are more valid, you err aff since I'm actually providing the credibility that what I'm saying is actually true and I'm not just BSing things.