Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found.

Thank you Blah. It's been a pleasure.==Clarifications==I really did not want to pursue this line of argument, but my opponent's attempts at using the word 'alternative' to warp the resolution simply cannot be ignored even if it should be as according to the rules in R1. So voters take note as a I explain the resolution in full clarity.Blah: "An alternative is different to a replacement"In context, the meaning is very clear. As stated in round 1, an alternative is defined to mean "one of multiple possibilities". My opponent claims that this definition means that animal testing would still be implemented. However consider these statements:Wage labor is an alternative for slavery.Communism is an alternative for Democracy.These statements necessarily denote a replacement of the previous system. Similarly, an alternative for animal testing denotes a replacement of animal testing. My opponent claims that the definition of the word 'alternative' means that we can cycle through alternatives. Nowhere in the definition of the word of alternative is such a condition specified. Any meaning that can or cannot be attached to the word must consider its context. The word itself specifies nothing more than what is written for its definitions. My opponent's citation of the word's definitional clause and his explanation are entirely incongruent. His attempts at semantics (argumentation via definitions) fail.Secondly, 'Animal testing', as stated in round 1, is defined to be 'the use of non-human animals inexperiments".Blah: "We can still use animal testing when needed."My opponent clearly supports some animal testing, but the resolution does not ask whether we should find an alternative to some animal testing. It asks, instead, for us to consider finding an alternative to animal testing. The resolution does not exclude any facet of animal testing. All animal testing falls under it. To support any amount of animal testing is to support the negative resolution"I said something different in the debate, doesn't mean the resolution itself changes."Exactly.Blah - "That very sentence (as well as the other) was a result of copying my arguments from a similar debate I had participated in."I went to find the debate and here it is, ladies and gentlemen:http://www.debate.org...The resolution of the past debate to which he is referring to is exactly the same as the one we are doing now. In an attempt to point out the discrepancy between his newly defined resolution and the one being argued in his first constructive round, Blah points out that his first round is copied from another debate. This is a null point because both debates have the same resolution. Whatever Blah was arguing there is exactly what he's arguing here. Is he attempting to move the goal post? Yes.==Contention of Absolutes==This contention states that animal-tests 'aren't at all careful', to which I cited the employment of professions specifically tailored to care for animals. I also questioned the relevancy of his evidence, the 'eyelid sewn shut' scenario. I stated that the results of an experiment and whether or not an experiment is performed with care are entirely independent considerations. My opponent does not address this critique, instead opting to present new cases of experimental results in addition to reiterating the one which I was questioning. (By the way, I don't see how that picture helps your case as it does not prove that general care provided to the animal in question is nonexistent)."Most research animals do not experience procedures that are any more invasive than what most people face during an annual physical examination. When potentially uncomfortable procedures are involved, anesthetics and analgesics are used to relieve discomfort."[1]==Animal Testing is unreliable==I've repeatedly shown that the statistics that my opponent uses aren't entirely relevant or conducive to this contention. Again, both animal and non-animal methods are part of the preclinical trial. The statistics ignore this fact and falsely attributes all failed trials to animal testing. My opponent completely drops this crippling refutation. On this alone, my opponent's second contention fails.My opponent then goes on to claim that there are better alternatives to animal testing. Instead of having us click into the broken link that doesn't work even after refreshing, he has us consider the quote derived from the link. Fine. My opponent cites one single case in which some alternative method is better than animals-testing. He does not, however, show that alternatives are better than animal testing in general. Once again, I'd like to re-elicit my opponent's concession to the necessity of animal testing as an irreplaceable part of biomedical research. Even if some areas can be shown to function better without animal testing, other areas cannot function at all.As I've forwarded, animal testing is replaced whenever possible (it is expensive, time consuming, etc.). It cannot be replaced when replacement is impossible. There is no alternative when an alternative is impossible. It's so simple it's tautological.Contention 2 remains refuted.==Costs==My opponent declares that the costs of animal testing do not justify its benefits. This contention is necessarily subjective. The results of animal testing saves millions of lives every year[2], both animal and human. If my opponent believes $16 billion outwieghs these lives, then there's nothing more for me to say. I assert that the millions of lives that are annually sustained clearly outweigh $16 billion. So much for my opponent's contentions. Now for mine:==Blah's Rebuttals=="My opponent's claim that every single argument that I made against animal testing, and arguments against it in general, could be made on human testing. However, this is false. My opponent fails to remember that we are looking for an ALTERNATIVE to animal testing. Should the test inflict excessive harm or pain, we can switch back to animal testing in those cases. Otherwise we should use human testing to research."My opponent declares that we should use human testing and alternate with animal testing. This fundamentally undermines every single contention he's made. I've shown quite early on that the rate of failure of human testing is just as proportionally high as the rate of failure of general preclinical tests. The costs of human testing would also be massive relative to animal testing. Same problem, different entity. Eyelids sewn shut, etc. Blah negates his own cases with this suggestion. Duplication: My opponent concedes the case, opting to refute its relevancy to the resolution. Alternatives' reliability: Irrelevant. My opponent has clearly conceded that animal testing is irreplaceable. This means that he agrees that reliability in areas in which animal testing is irreplaceable is exactly zero. Again: "It is impossible to ascertain whether a heart bypass works, for example, without conducting an actual heart bypass."Dropped arguments?: I've addressed all three of my opponent's contentions and his counter-rebuttals repeatedly. My opponent, on the other hand, repeatedly failed to address necessary facets of my refutations which served to negate his contentions. Extend nothing here."My opponent must not respond to these dropped arguments in his last round, since they have been dropped throughout. Any response to these cannot be countered and must be disregarded."I've addressed anything that had any impact to this debate.What I've refuted: C1 - I've shown that my opponent's first contention fails by providing necessary materia indicating the employment of animal-care professionals in animal-testing environments. I also showed my opponent's evidence to be inconclusive.C2 - The evidence for this case is something I've repeatedly addressed. My opponent repeatedly fails to mitigate the errors of his evidence. C2 is negated. On the other hand, I've argued that animal testing has yielded real results and that, contrary to my opponent's argumentation, these results have been shown to be extrapolatable. My opponent's concession to animal tests' irreplaceability also negates C2's other facets (more reliable results vs. no reliable results).C3 - Millions of lives > $16 billionConcessions & failed address:That animal testing is necessary (conceded)That there is not functional alternative to animal testing as a whole (follows from concession of irreplaceability)That animal testing saves lives both animal and humanThat animal test facilities do subscribe to careThat, appeal to authority or not, animal testing is agreed to be necessary (a point Blah concedes later in the debate)That there is no replacement for animal testing (the debate on a platter) ==Conclusion==There's nothing left to say really.My opponent suggests that I lose conduct points. I find that absolutely hilarious.The affirmative has been successfully negated.Thank you Blah for the debate.Vote CON.[1] http://www.amprogress.org...;[2] http://www.mofed.org...;