Wierdman's Tourney- Animal Testing

First of all some statistics about animal testing 95% of all lab animals are specially bred lab rats and mice Non Human Primates account for .25% dogs and cats .5% The remanding 4.25% includes rabbits, guinea pigs, woodchucks, pigs, sheep, armadillos, leeches, zebra fish, squid, horseshoe crabs, sea snails and fruit flies All animals are anathesized(Meaning they can feel nothing)[1] Ct.1 In order to prove animal testing is still saving lives I will do a simple calculation. If its capitalized that means its a factor that you can change 1. Take the bare MINIMUM of POLIO CASES that were DEADLY in the U. S BEFORE a vaccine was invented 2. Calculate that over a period of time up to the CURRENT date from the DATE of the vaccine(NOT factoring the population influx) So the bare minimum of the cases is the U. S was 13,000 one year and the vaccine was invented in 1952. It has been 60 years since the vaccine was made. So that has saved 780,000 people's lives Not to mention that this was only in the US, and it was a multitude of other factors that you can throw in. Also, My opponent has also said that animal testing HAS saved lives. This is still a pro to animal testing simply because those human lives created more human life(Thus affecting and saving more people than the drug intended). Ct.2 I would like to point out the Con has acknowledged this point as a pro for animal testing. Also, I would like to state that his analogy of very unreasonable, comparing children to worms is not a great analogy. Looking outside of that even the analogy is false, a non sequitur at best. Con's Case 1. Animal testing is immoral and causes much suffering on the animal's part When anyone calls something moral or immoral, it brings in humans Because humans are the only ones that can compare morality and discuss it. (After all we are the ones having this debate aren't we? Not lab rats) Also a animal cannot be tortured. Torture by definition "the act of inflicting severe pain as a means of punishment, revenge, forcing information or a confession, or an act of cruelty"[2] The definition of later goes on to say "It is considered to be a violation of human rights" The reason torture is only applied to humans is because we can measure torture ourselves as one species. Whether its "Damn, that looked like it hurt" "Damn it, Steve that hurt! " You see, you can do that to an animal because they do not receive pain like we do. And also, please do not use the fallacy of appeal to emotion. And with all these new sources and pictures I could not see them becuase they crashed my browser when I opened the links. But I did notice something about one source, the "vegan peace" site. I would like to point out that most vegan are veganist becuase of ethical reasons[3] have the belief of "reject the commodity status of animals and the use of animal products for any purpose" Of course they would be against anything to do with animals, This is a bias source. 2. Animal testing is not reliable I have a question for the con. Just because the drugs caused deaths, does it actually mean it is animal testing fault? According to this logic then wouldn't human testing also be at fault? All of these products were tested by humans after all. You see my opponent is trying to blame animal testing when it could have been other parts of the testing that cause the problems. My opponent never even said or showed anything about animal testing that would have cause these things directly. A-A perfect example. And the word "would" seems to indicate that No one knows for sure that CQL caused SMON directly. They merely assume it "would",BUT the article states that this hypothesis is also compatible with "environmental pollution in Japan". Meaning that both together inherently caused this reaction, so the blame can't lie only on Clioquinol but on the environmental pollution. This is also back up by the fact in which the article stated that the only reaction happened in Japan. So how is animal testing unreliable? It didn't cause anything anywhere else? Maybe it's actually the environmental pollution's fault? B-Looking at this source, Opren actually wasn't even touched by animals. (I would like to point out that Opren's real name is Benoxaprofen, an Oraflex is the American name) And according to this source[4] all experiments were on humans. Here are the step that they took of the testing process in the U. S "In the first step of the process, Lilly tested Benoxaprofen on a handful of healthy human volunteers. " "Phase II of testing involved a larger number of human subjects, including some with minor illnesses" "Lilly began the third, and largest, phase of the human testing process in 1976. It said more than 2,000 arthritis patients were administered the drug by more than 100 doctors, who reported back to the company on the results. " So this leads us to ask some question? Are the alternatives really that safe? The con proved actually proved it himself. Now even though my opponent wanted to drop this point(see comments) I just wanted to point this out. How does this prove animal testing is unreliable? If it's humans that are being testing? C-Thalidomide My opponent never actual proves how animal testing causes all the deaths. His argument stance "Because a drug was animal tested, and because the drug caused deaths, it means animal testing was directly responsible" Now even though we animal test in order to observe a drug reaction with a species, doesn't mean animal testing was inherently responsible. My argument stance Because a drug was animal tested, no my bad human tested, and the drug cause deaths, doesn't mean animal testing was responsible, There are many factors to account for such as did the manufacture mess with the product, did someone mess with the results, did the scientist not properly record the reactions? " And with the 92%, that does not nessarily prove that animal testing is unreliable, it just mean that human testing is more difficult than animal testing to pass. Animal Life vs Human Life To answer my opponent's question, Yes I would kill 200,000 animals for toothpaste(consider most if not all will be lab rats), but apparently so would the con. In his first speech ". ..200,000 animal or so have been killed so I can brush my teeth in safety. " If the con uses toothpaste then he supports animal testing, simply by buying toothpaste. Never did the con say that he won't use toothpaste because of animal testing. And he also wants his toothpaste to be safe. So the con themselves is actually in support of animal testing. He even says because of it he can "brush my teeth in safety". And also as I explained earlier that particular drug(Opren, Oraflex) did not endanger human lives. Why? Because it was not even animal tested. But now that I have answered you questions, I would like you to answer the one that I have Would you kill a lab rat to save a child? 3. The alternative to animal testing My opponent says this argument has no value to him at all. I do not know whether to treat this as a drop, but in the comments sectio he stated that I do not have to rebuttal this contention so i won't Conclusion We can see that the pro did not even factor in the pros he himself accept in the round, But I will accept all pros and con presented so far into the round. Con's presented so far Animal testing is apparently immoral and cruel(Rebuttal earlier) 100 million animal dead(Again specially born and bred lab rats are 95% of this) Pros presented so far Saved and is Saving million of animal(Some that Con himself agreed to) Saved million of human(Con agreed to this as well) Is saving millions of lives(Proved by calculation and the effect of surviving) Thank you