This house would ban animal testing

He Claims " There's absolutely no reason why it should cost anything to enforce already existing laws to their full extent" Well that's just purely false. Unless it's raining painkillers, animal nourishment and proper animal shelter. I don't see any way how it's possible to improve the health standards of animals while still maintaining cost? A common theme throughout most of my opponents refutations is my inability to argue his points, but two can play at that game. My opponent time after time has failed to respond or even hint at my stronger arguments such as researching using human tissue and cells. Which ARE more efficient and accurate, I have thrown facts in his face time after time and he always disregards them. Instead he picks on my sources and comes up with the most irrelevant points such as He claims: "But I can assure my opponent that all of my information has been cross checked and approved." This is just your assertion. It doesn't help that I was questioning you in the first place, then you just say "Trust me guys, I got this." The fact that half of my 3rd argument is based completely on the fact that there is new technology and for him to just ignore it proves that either 1) he just simply did not read half my argument, or 2) he's deliberately not answering them because there is nothing to argue, and If I were in his shoes I would be doing the same thing. Because what this debate comes down to is rather simple. There is better technology that can be purchased and developed RIGHT NOW. Not in 10 years, RIGHT NOW. Animal experimentation was a great method to learn and better our medecine, but we must replace previous technology with better ones, that's not questionable, it's human evolution, just because animal experimentation has helped us in the past, that doesn't mean we should just keep using them, if we didn't have the technology to replace animal experimentation, then this wouldn't be a debate, animal experimentation would be the way to go. The circumstances are not such, and we are able to use better technology. This new technology isn't controversial in the least and has a higher accuracy rate which will lead to higher rate of success in a human body. My opponent also tries to pull a fast one, saying: it just turns the debate into "Does animal testing give us things that are worth the cost". No, my dear friend. This debate should be "Are there other methods of experimentation that can replace animal testing??" and the answer will always be yes because... By saying that other methods will not work as well as animal testing without even talking about and discussing the pros and cons of other types of methods. My opponent must be living under a rock if he thinks that there is NO other viable way to replace animal experimentation , I've read an article this morning that suggests 3D models of animals or human cells can potentially replace animal testing, his inability to think outside the box will cost him. And his refutation to my argument about using other methods is weak and ignorant, the same kind of ignorance that caused the dark ages, a period of time where no attempts were made for science, mathematics, agriculture. Because "what we have is good enough" and we don't have to strive for better. The fact is if we don't strive for better and simply settled on what we have, we'll never improve, we'll never go forward. And since my opponent cannot prove that there aren't better methods out there to animal testing, I can only assume that I have won this debate Animal testing has contributed to some life-saving cures and treatments, animal experimentation had a great run, but it's time we can do without, it's time we can do better. The question isn't whether or not we should try and find better ways to replace animal experimentation, the question is simply are you ready to use newer and more effective ways to research medecine and cosmetics. In the past we did not have a choice if we didn't experiment on animals there were no other ways to do it. But if we continue to research on animals, with newer and more effective technology available then this would be unacceptable. And unless you can genuinely tell yourself that mankind has not improved over the past however many years we were alive and strived, that we had to use the same method of experimentation our ancestors used this decision shouldn't be hard for anyone to judge.