Animal Testing

****REBUTTALS****"Ok my opponent seems to have gotten more aggressive last round. It's okay. To each their own. "I have, but understandably so. You seem to be ignoring a lot of evidence that I pointed out, as well as arguments. Not only that but your arguments are contrived and repetitive. I give a rebuttal to something, yet you continue to ignore it and argue the same thing as if my arguments were non-existent. Between that and the Copy pasta, I have to admit I am a pretty aggravated. Moving on. "First I would like to mention that my opponent contradicted himself. Round 2:"The main point however, that would like to accomplish, is that it doesn't matter how much resemblance to the human DNA animals resemble, as long as the specific tested gene article resembles that of a human. "Round 3: "It [DNA] has everything to do with effectiveness. I have proven this. Your point false because it lacks the evidence to support this emotion riddled statement" How are these statements contradictory? They both prove the same point. DNA resemblance being similar to human DNA, means a higher likelihood of success for the medical practioner. The similarities in the gene make-up are a testament to the fact that the effectiveness will work inevitably. "I'm getting mixed arguments from my opponent. Does DNA resemblance matter or not? Pro doesn't make it clear with his paradoxical arguments. "I would really like you to explain not only how they contradict, but how they are paradoxical when they work together in context of achieving similar DNA. "In fact, less then 2% of human illnesses or 1.16% are ever seen in animals"What's the relevance here? We are finding cures for HUMANS through animal testing. Finding cures for animals through the process here and there is just a helpful benefit along the way. "Most medical experts agree that data from animal tests cannot be extrapolated safely to human patients. "False dichotomy, and contrived. The source is an article by an Internet user. None of his sources are listed, and he fails to explain how any of the information therein is achieved. Why? Because it's false doctrine. Much like that of what PETA uses on their site. Interesting no? . http://www.buzzle.com... Animal can cause birth defects. 88% of stillbirths are due to drugs posed to be safe in animal testing. Also this makes no sense, because the point of animal testing is to provide a safe medicinal environment for the humans. Humans wouldn't use any sort of medicine if it wasn't proven to be safe first on animals. What exactly causes still births? I am excited for your explanation of false 'facts'. "Not only do people who hurt animals abuse them. Studies show that people who abuse animals for selfish purposes don't stop there, they move on to human abuse. "What the- Are you kidding me? To the audience: I am bolding the above statement so you can see just how ridiculous this debate has become. We are no longer arguing animal testing it seems. My opponent has instead made an argument against animal abuse. Where did I advocate that animal abuse is okay? This is a manipulation attempt on emotion, trying to fool the audience into thinking I feel animal abuse is okay. This is extremely abusive, and I ask that this carries over both the conduct and arguments point by the viewers. "My opponent did not provide a list that says how animal testing does more good them harm. Rather he just gave a bunch of links, most just take me to the front page of every website. None of those links say "Animal testing does more good than bad" or anything close to that. Some of those links didn't even work from my experience. I gave 50 ways how animal testing hurts humans. Yet the good it has done that I read is AIDS, Polio, Stroke. Beyond that my opponent failed to provide one a link that gives 50 or more ways that says animal testing does more good than harm. "You fail to understand. Each of those links provide a source to a medical research or study that has been benefited because of animal testing. Take your contrived and emotional link of 50 things, and throw it off a cliff. It does not prove that the advance in medical research, and the saving of human lives is less important than the death of a few animals. "My opponent says the animals tested on are kept in a humane environment. Yet I have not read that anywhere. I would like an article that says animals aren't mistreated. "Again, at the audience: How can I attempt to debate someone who fails to even try and read my arguments? For my opponents clarification, let's go back to R2, where I quote the site of an animal testing site that proves they do not mis-treat animals in their practices. You completely ignore this. Next time, I suggest purchasing reading glasses my friend. Anyways, if you are too lazy to read my quotations from the site, you can read it off the site yourself. . http://www.aspca.org... "Most of the animals that are tested are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act. At the end of all the pain they go through most are killed without consent. 55% of them die from the actual experiments"Specieism argument, See round 1. "An interesting as well as an utterly gross fact to be digested, is that an estimated 103,800 animals are not administered with any medication to cease partially or completely, the pain caused due to animal testing. The pain by no means is minimal. The procedure being conducted on the animal may be extremely painful. When humans are petrified at the proposal of getting 'poked' by a medical practitioner, wonder what happens to animals at the idea of being tested upon? These are not given any medication reduce the pain. "Specieism argument, See round 1. "If animal testing was necessary for humanity, we would've died thousands of years ago. "If animal testing was implemented thousands of years ago, it would have saved hundreds upon thousands of human lives. You see what I did there? I twisted one of your many emotion based false dichotomy arguments, and showed the truth of the matter with it. Emotion does nothing over logic, however, if you want to get into the emotion arguments, I can ask you why it is okay for humans to die in place of animals? "My opponent did not argue that killing an animal an animal for science is like killing an pet. Most Americans see their pets as family. In fact, Americans spend more money annually on their pets than on babies. [4] Animals are our brothers and sisters. We should not kill them, that would be like killing our actual brothers and sisters. "Animals are nothing more than tools used for our amusement, you cannot deny this. You can love a pet, and be-friend it. But at the end of the day, you control that pet, as a mother controls a child. You tell it how to act or behave such that is appropriate with your standards. If a dog barks loudly, then humans will tell it to stop, and the dog will, or it will suffer some sort of consequence. It doesn't happen the other way around. If Animals were our equals, they would take us on walks, and make us do chores. We ride horses, not the other way around. No matter what way you look at it, Animals are simply tools, and we use them for our own selfish purposes, in and out side of animal testing. If my opponent condones having pets, than he condones the use of animal testing, plain and simple. "Animal testing cost between 12-16 billion dollars a year. [5][6] That is not out-pocket money. That costs from us taxpayers. This wasteful spending is unnecessary, many alternatives are in place already for use. Less costly, less cruel, more effective. " My opponent ignores my arguments on this for the 3rd time. I am not going to bother repeating myself, this is just getting ridiculous. "Alternatives to animal tests are effective, reliable, affordable and humane. "MY arguments were ignore again. *gasps* Big surprise. My opponent ignores arguments, and evidence. I feel like I am talking to a wall.