We should have lab rats in labatories

Alright, thanks to logical-master123 for challenging me to this debate. I'll start with some overviews. OV1) Let's be clear what this debate is about. The question here is whether or not lab rats should be used in laboratories, and as such, I will specifically defend the use of lab rats bred for the purpose. But it should also be noted what I'm not defending. I'm not forced to defend animal cruelty, nor am I required to defend specific labs or types of experiements. As long as I show that lab rats should be used in some laboratories, that's sufficient for me to win this debate. OV2) The burden of proof in this debate is on Con, since he's arguing against the status quo. He's stating that we must necessarily exclude lab rats as a type of animal testing in the laboratory. In fact, his case applies to all lab animals and not just rats, and as such he is required to either defend a better means for accomplishing these goals, or eschew lab tests as a whole. Onto rebuttals. 1. Death and harm Con's C1-C3 all might as well come under this heading. Con strays from the prompt. He starts this contention talking about rats, and then shifts to mice. Mice are non-topical, by Con's own definitions. I see this as an effort by Con to push me to defend all animal testing rather than just testing of rats, which is all I have to do. This does expand HIS burden, though. Risk exists, independent of the test subject. But pre-clinical trials are extremely important for establishing safety, which absolutely must be done. So, what should we test? Note that these mice aren't getting captured. They're often bred specifically for the lab, which means they've only known captivity. If scientists didn't do this, they would have to capture them and bring them into the lab. I'd personally say that that's worse, but more importantly, they would lose a number of genetic mutants that make it possible to understand the effects of certain treatments.[1] Without that knowledge, it would be impossible to study things like diabetes, kidney disease, immune system disorders, inflammation, allergic response, transplantation, and countless other problems that don't occur similarly in any animal aside from humans. Con's also unclear on why it matters that we treat mice (or rats) poorly. There are plenty of reasons why humans are preferred to mice, in particular our cognitive abilities make us capable of understanding right from wrong (and yes, if mice suddenly garner that understanding, I would argue against lab testing on them). I'll grant that damage to their populations and freedom is a moral hazard, though I'd say the fact that these are lab-bred rodents means that they were granted their very lives by the system Con's so thoroughly against, which means he's also arguing against the existence of these lives. 2. Lab Rats Spread Disease Con doesn't seem to realize that neither any cancer nor Parkinson's Disease are infectious.[2, 3] Unless we give an infectious disease to rodents and then don't take adequate precautions (they do [4]), there's no risk to humans from testing diseases in rodents. 3. Con's "Solution" Con says we should test in humans. First, we actually do " they're called clinical trials.[5] What Con is advocating for is extending the testing of drugs to humans in preclinical trials. Second, Con doesn't realize that preclinical studies are safety tasting. What he's advocating here is for those studies to go on first in humans, which will either encounter the same problems as with rodents (only this time with people, who can sue for damages), or no one will touch it, which will bring drug development to a halt. Third, studies in humans aren't necessarily good substitutes. Understanding treatment over a lifetime and intergenerationally can be very important. That's something we're able to do in rats very easily, but in humans it would take decades of monitoring. He says that we may one day be able to test in robots. First, we can't do this now, and so this suggestion is merely a science fiction dream. Second, even if we get robots akin to animals, they will never perfectly simulate a living system, The inherent complexity of that system will always be beyond our understanding. What Con's case amounts to is basically one large appeal to emotion. He presents a nice picture, talks about all the poor rodents, and basically ignores the issue of why we use rodents in labs at all. Now, onto my case. To be clear, what I'm arguing for is a continuation of the status quo. Treatment of animals should continue to be regulated to ensure that they're housed well and that they suffer as little as possible. With that, onto the why. 1. Harms to other animals Again, looking back at the resolution, all I have to do is affirm that we should continue to use rats. Con appears to be very concerned about mice. If rats are pulled out of labs, then those labs will simply replace them with mice. If they don"t replace them with mice, they"ll replace them with one of the dozens of other animals they have access to: dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits, pigs, and primates, for example.[] By using lab-grown rats, I"m reducing harms to most of these populations, many of which aren"t bred in the lab. 2. Importance of rats to studies I pointed this out earlier, but rats are a very genetically malleable organism. What that means is that there are multiple mutants of rats that have been bred in order to study certain diseases in rats that otherwise wouldn"t be present. This is impossible with most other organisms, mainly due to limitations in breeding and transgenic technologies. Rats, therefore, represent a necessary model for studying disease states and treatments, particularly because their behavior and physiology is more relevant to humans than other rodents.[1] It"s for this reason that the amount of scientific literature that has been produced using rats as a model species is staggeringly large, with rats and mice making up 95% of all animal research and rats being used 50% more often than mice.[1, 7] We can attribute the vast majority of pharmaceuticals and treatment methods to rats first and foremost. 3. Why we should care We should be most concerned with the continued survival and quality of life of our own species. Our preservation should come first and foremost, and as long as that requires doing studies in other organisms, that"s what we have to do. I know this sounds anthropocentric, but Con isn"t really seeking to protect all animals anyway since he"s just trying to prevent scientists from harming this particular rodent. If he really cared, he"d be extending this to all life forms tested in the laboratory, though that would require that we consider the countless insects and even bacteria tested in labs across the country. He provides no particular reason why rats are special, and we cannot realistically stop all research with every form of life that exists without dooming humanity to death by the next plague that comes our way. Sure, in a perfect world, no creature would have to endure harm, but we don"t live in a perfect world, and we cannot function solely based off of a sense of empathy with some lab-grown rats. The facts are as follows: nearly every medical breakthrough in recent history has resulted directly from research using animals, particularly when it comes to vaccines, cancers, and heart disease.[8] Rats make up a substantial proportion of these. The alternatives for animal testing simply aren't ready to replace them. Moreover, even if we care about animals, the research helps them as well, offering treatments to many diseases that afflict both them and humans.[9] The benefits are clear. With that, I hand the debate back to Con. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://bit.ly... 3. http://1.usa.gov... 4. http://bit.ly... 5. http://1.usa.gov... 6. http://bit.ly... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://bit.ly... 9. http://bit.ly...