Animal Testing should continue for medical research

Firstly, I will refute my opponent's points, and then advocate my one and only contention to this topic."Not any more cruel"This point does nothing to address why animal testing SHOULD continue for medical research--it merely states how animal testing is not worse than the wild. This is a textbook example of Ignoratio elenchi--presenting an argument that may or may not be logically or functionally valid, but that fails to address the issue in question. This logical fallacy must therefore be discarded, or my opponent must prove how it relates directly to the resolution, and how it isn't just a poorly-disguised attempt at pre-emptively refuting my possible arguments."All drugs have to go through animal testing"This is more of a superficial comment, but I challenge my opponent to cite what information, exactly, is sourced directly from his citations below. This would expedite a reasoned discourse. Furthermore, all of these "drugs" that my opponent claims have gone through animal testing can just as easily go through cell culture testing, as I will address in greater detail below."Alternatives are not reliable"Ah. Now this argument promises to be the major point of clash in this debate, as my sole contention is as follows:"Animal testing can be substituted for cell cultures or other alternative methods."My opponent claims that, because "most bodily functions have different cells for their tasks", then to use cell cultures as a testing method will somehow incur erroneous or insufficient results. However, it is important to note exactly the testing systems that laboratories and pharmaceutical companies use to ensure drug safety.A study by Bjorn Ekwal, "Screening of toxic compounds in tissue culture," where "comparisons of in vitro cytotoxicity with in vivo toxicity of 85 randomly selected drugs indicated that for most drugs a systemic lethal action was brought about by cytotoxicity. A screening model is advocated by which results of cytotoxicity tests are compared with systemic toxicity in vivo to evaluate the systemic cytotoxicity of chemicals [1]." What does this mean? For most drugs, their potentially lethal effects are brought about by damage to cellular systems. The study says it all: "A screening model is advocated by which results of cytotoxicity tests. . .systemic toxicity."Thus, testing drugs' effects on cells themselves is actually one of the most important parts of any pharmaceutical testing battery, contrary to what my opponent suggested.Furthermore, these cell cultures are cultured "in vitro"--in a laboratory environment that is carefully manipulated to remove "interference by nervous and humoral factors present in the intact organism [2]." This means that they are actually more accurate than testing the entire animal, as extraneous (or "nervous or humoral") factors may be excluded from the pharmaceutical testing battery with greater accuracy.Now, a careful reader might note that all of these sources cite using cultured cells derived from tissue samples from animals, and my opponent may attempt to argue that these samples are, in fact animals, but that is just the status quo. These cells could come pretty much from anywhere.Moreover, "animal cell culture[s are] used to study the effects of new drugs, cosmetics and chemicals on survival and growth of a number of types of cells. Especially liver and kidney cells. Cultured animal cells are also used to determine the maximum permissible dosage of new drugs [3]." This quotation succinctly sums up my entire argument--animal cell cultures are far more efficacious than testing "animals," which my opponent implied to mean "the entire animal" when he attempted to refute my argument pre-emptively.What is the clash? Why does it matter?My opponent's entire argument was alarmingly devoid of thorough citations, as well as truly scientific research. Thus, any evidence I can provide to the contrary immediately renders my opponent's points irrelevant--they aren't supported enough to even really consider "points."Let me quote: "Also, many alternatives are vastly more expensive or time-consuming than animal testing."Where is the citation? Furthermore, to quote my opponent's only linked source, "Animal testing generally costs an enormous amount of money, as the animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with drugs or a similar experimental substance. [4]"Now, while I'm not focusing on the problems inherent within animal testing, this point is worth noting. To focus on the problems inherent to animal testing would provide an interesting debate, but I'll focus primarily on the benefits of my counterplan.Moreover, I have provided scientific studies that show cell testing is far more important than testing an entire animal, and thus cell testing is superior to animal testing.Finally, all of these research sources I have provided are in consensus--cell testing is better than entire animal testing.I await my opponent's rebuttal, and I challenge my opponent to provide clearer citations at the risk of unintentional plagairism.Citations:[1]:http://www.sciencedirect.com...[2]:http://www.annualreviews.org...[3]:http://www.biotecharticles.com...[4]:http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk...