Animal testing

Before I begin, I want to point out that before my opponent made any kind of response, she said "I will agree to the many things that animals have been test subjects for are 85% good."Here she's basically conceding to my impacts, short of expressing concern for the suffering of animals. This means you can extend out the list of cures and treatments that have been developed because of animal testing (the University of Minnesota evidence) as well as the Still evidence which is talking about how animal testing has led to the development of more than 160 drugs and vaccines approved by the FDA, as well as 111 USDA-approved veterinary vaccines and biologics that improve the health of animals. This means that no matter what I'm showing how animal testing is helping both humans and animals, which means that a) I have offense back toward affirming the resolution, while my opponent doesn't have any offense toward negating the resolution, and b) this evidence is showing how I'm working toward eliminating suffering in animals (I'll touch on this specifically in a second) through developing USDA-approved vaccines and medicines that we can use to improve their health. Affirming means that if animals are suffering from testing, that they won't be for long once we come out with the medicines required to end their suffering and return them to normal lives.But let's go to this concept of suffering of the testing animals. There's a lot of problems with this argument.To begin with, animals aren't even really suffering from experimentation. Still 2 continues: “The USDA and National Institutes of Health regularly inspect research institutions to verify the well-being and care of animals. … animals used in research do not suffer more pain or distress than animals outside the lab. In fact, lab animals often receive the best of care because of their value to researchers. Today, animal research is predominantly research involving rodents and rabbits. … only 5 percent of research and development involves animals – and 99 percent of those animals are mice, rats and rabbits. … Computer modeling has reduced the amount of animal research. So has cell-based research. The use of animal embryonic stem cells in drug testing has dramatically improved the quality of such tests, and more quickly provided researchers with information about the safety and efficacy of drugs.” But even if they are suffering, refer back to the Still 1 evidence showing how through animal testing I'm creating medicines and vaccines that we can use to improve the quality of life of animals. This means that while my opponent is just complaining about how animals are suffering under animal testing and proposes no way to end it, I'm actually working to end suffering of animals in the long-term. But even if I wasn't working toward ending animal suffering, there's no inherent reason why animals have to suffer in the first place from testing. Even if some testing facilities today are pretty crappy places and treat animals awfully, there's absolutely no reason as to why this has to stay that way or why it means we have to get rid of animal testing altogether. It would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just make regulation of animal testing more harsh and crack down on testing facilities that violate animal protection laws. But even if we couldn't minimize, or eliminate entirely, the suffering animals experience during testing, their suffering in the grand scheme of things is worth while. Not only does their suffering leading to things that improve the lives of humans, if not saving lives entirely, but it's also leading to the development of medicines that help animals as well. This means that even if she's winning on suffering, I outweigh.== Conclusion ==She pretty much concedes to the vast majority of my arguments, and her only concern on suffering is thuroughly refuted.