Animal testing does more good than harm.

Rebuttal of C1: Animal testing contributes to cures and treatments that save lives.In this contention, my opponent claims that many medical breakthroughs have happened because of animal testing and that without this, many lives would've been lost. This is provided by no source. In fact, none of my opponent's debate provides a source of any kind, except for the California Biomedical Research Association, but there is no specific citation given. To continue, he gives an example about Hepatitis B and how testing on chimps proved to provide an effective vaccine. Again, like I said before, no sources are provided and after even more research, this theory doesn't hold up. In fact, the vaccine was tested on blood samples from gay men who were at a risk of HPV to make sure the vaccine was effective. [1] Thankfully, it was, but it wasn't because of animal testing.My opponent then says that animal testing can help animals too. He says that I'd vaccines weren't tested on animals, they would've died from rabies, distemper, feline leukaemia, etc. But this is only a small percentage of animals among those that are killed. And like I said in my opening statements, most animals are euthanized after the experiments. [2] This eliminates the animals that may have been saved from the vaccines. My opponent then claims that the black-footed ferret and the California condor were saved by animal testing, but again, no proof of this is given. Fortunately, I have no one findings. Unfortunately, my opponent is proven wrong once again. The black-footed ferret and the California condors were saved by breeding programs and specific recovery plans [3,4] Plus, my opponent fails to explain what conservation has to do with animal testing. Rebuttal of C2: Animal testing is the necessary method of testing.In this argument, my opponent mainly explains that there are no adequate alternative methods of testing. Before I go into the various, more effective alternatives to animal testing, I like to point out that my opponent never shows any examples of alternatives. He never shows their weaknesses and why animal testing is superior. With that said, here's why animal testing is inferior to many other variants. First alternative: In vitroIn vitro - (of a biological process) made to occur in a laboratory vessel or other controlled experimental environment rather than within a living organism or natural setting. [5]Anyways, with in vitro, human cells can be used instead of animal cells, which, in turn, gives more accurate results, [6] as a person is drastically different from an animal, like I said in my opening statements. Second alternative: Microdosing"A more recent development, microdosing, puts experimental studies back into the bodies of human volunteers. It uses drug doses too small to create either a pharmacological effect or an adverse reaction and has been made possible by analytical methods that can detect substances in blood and plasma at concentrations in the pg/ml range." [7]In other words, this can be used on people."Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin." [8]With both of these alternatives, we can decrease the suffering from unwilling animal subjects and use human volunteers instead, all while getting more accurate results. Thank you. Best of good luck. So long and goodnight! Citations[1]http://blog.advocatesaz.org...[2]http://www.hsi.org...[3]https://nationalzoo.si.edu...[4]https://www.nps.gov...[5]http://www.dictionary.com...[6]http://advocacy.britannica.com...[7]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[8]http://animal-testing.procon.org...