This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research

How timetable. These will be my last words on here, as I will rarely have time to come debate online since College starts tomorrow. It was nice debating with you, and I look forward to debating with you, hopefully once I find time. My opponent has failed to learn of history. We as human progress, as time change. We get better at things, the more we conduct on them. Take for examples computers. Computers used to take up a whole room, but as humans conduct more research and continue to work with computers, they were able to provide us with personal computers! The fancy cars we have today weren't the ones ford motor used to build. But as the centuries went on, and as he developed on building these cars, he was able to provide us with the new cars. Just like you, others thought this wasn't possible. They doubted. And what happens: they got proven wrong. I am exactly right by my statement that "we should continue testing as in the future, we will be able to conduct more accurate tests." I say this because you said were not conducting accurate test right now, so were some inventions that were first created, they weren't conducted accurate, but as we apply our knowledge and continue to test to see how things work, we were able to and will be able to conduct more accurate tests on animals. Well obviously, I cannot show you "evidence of this statement", because I myself used the word "future," unless you're misapplying it to this debate. I cannot show you evidence, but yes it is a guess, it's a vision; and like many others who had guessed, they progressed, and that's the same we'll do with animal testing. Actually you did mention perfection. You did not have to use the word itself, just your statement points all that out. " If testing on animals had a 100% chance, or even a 50% of helping humans, it might be justified, but this is not the case." You said if it had a 100% chance, before you'll consider it justify. This shows that you want to see perfection first before you accept it. 50% if also shooting for near perfection. And the term "not accurate" is seeking for accuracy, and if the testing wasn't accurate, you'll not see animal testing as justify or approve of it. Why care about animal testing? You claim I never refuted any of the evidence of the alternative methods, yet you never read what I said about "why care about animal testing." You actually haven't presented much alternative, it was round four before you actually explain it: "more sophisticated and accurate testing methods that did not exist when polio was being researched are available to us, and because of this, there is no reason to test on animals." "Non-invasive clinical and epidemiological studies on humans, tissue and cell-based research, advanced computer simulations, and an artificial brain created from brain cells, called a "micro-brain." Is this what you mean by your evidence of the alternative method? It does not spell out much of what it is, only that you copy and paste the alternative prescribed by your source, yet you did not go into detail to talk about it or how it will work. You consider it inhumane to research or otherwise test on animals. Yet you find it okay to research on humans? So its rather okay to research on humans, but not animals? Huh. Will humans not be prescribed to the same condition that these animals were being researched on? You advocating for researching on humans tissue and cell, by the very nature, that's exactly what we were doing with animals, because they share almost the same human system, yet instead of researching on the animals, you want us to research on the humans. Computer simulations is very wasteful. Not only will we be investing alot of money in getting these computers, but trying to prevent malfunctions and other issues that may arise with these computer. Which is a waste of energy, resources, and money. We'll also waste electricity in keeping these computer simulations running 24 hours. Computer simulation is not subject to the real world, so it cannot prove much of what will happen in the real world. Those computer simulation you're talking about will cost money and resources. Do you know how long it takes to program computer simulation? Do you know it requires skilled programmers and coders? You're trying to take the long and rather ineffective way in resolving diseases faster. By your alternative, we give diseases the means to move at a faster rate, rather try to counter it before it even moves. Artificial brain created from brain cells? Wow. The brain is created, and it is artificial. It is no longer attach to a human or a animal. So how can it be functioning? Explain how will it react to the drugs and other test? How can it express emotions on weather or not the drug is working in the human system? Again waste of resources, time, and money just trying to create these that will not bring much benefit. I say this but I guess you did not read it or maybe you skimp over it: Despite the "methods that are available to us" Some questions can only be answered by animal research. All the technologies in the world cannot replace the immense benefit of animals in research, as the technologies themselves cannot replace the genes and other systems of the animal body. I hope it answer you question that you claim I never refuted any of the evidence of the alternative methods, even though it was there all along. My opponent is actually trying to downplay this debate. He keeps talking about the past scenarios of polio, yet I have presented many other cure for animal testing. The reason he does not want to look at those other benefits is because he'll pretty much shot his claims down that animal testing is "not accurate." My video source pointed many other benefits. Did you look at it? What about the one's I personally mention in this debate: Smallpox, polio, yellow fever, diphtheria, measles, cystic fibrosis, malaria or muscular dystrophy. First my opponent tells me this about my argument: "my opponent has shown no evidence for this statement, and it is a total guess to assume that in the future, we will have progressed enough to conduct more accurate tests on animals." Than he tells me this about his argument: "it is very possible that there would have been the same result with humane testing!" How is it that I'm guessing, or that this is a "total guess to assume that in the future, we will have progressed enough to conduct more accurate tests on animals," yet what you're saying isn't a guess? You trying to say I cannot determine the future, yet you can determine the past? How sure are you that it would be the "same result." If so, than my argument is right that "we will have progressed enough to conduct more accurate tests on animals," since you can determine the past, I can also determine the future. Pro oppose researching on animals, yet he supports a method that research on humans. How nice. Supporting animal testing is helping research. It's growth, advancement of, and the well-being of humans. As a matter of fact, animal testing does help animals themselves! You're advocating for them, yet you do not support something that will also help them. These sources will pretty much kill your advocacy and argument. "Without important discoveries made possible with animal research, many of your dogs and cats, as well as birds, horses, livestock and wildlife, would die of diseases, viruses and injuries." "Pets, livestock, and animals in zoos live longer, more comfortable, and healthier lives as a result of animal research." "Doctors and veterinarians share almost 100 of the same medicines to heal humans and animals." http://www.nap.edu... http://www.swaebr.org... http://www.aalasfoundation.org... I rest my case. And look forward to your votes.