This house would ban animal testing

He claims: "But as I said in my last argument. 1) It's expensive 2) there are already laws in place (which very little takes seriously)" There's absolutely no warrant to this. Moreover, there's absolutely no reason why it should cost anything to enforce already existing laws to their full extent: just tell the government to do their job. And even if it would cost money to get the government to do their job, there's absolutely no warrant for why this would be more expensive than implimenting new technologies (that aren't even better than animal testing, refer back to the Murali evidence that he STILL hasn't responded to). He claims: "I even found alternative ways" Refer back to Murali when she's talking about how alternatives to animal testing are insufficient or just worse overall. This hasn't been responded to in the slightest. This is massively important because now it doesn't matter that he found alternatives to animal testing, I've already been showing you that these alternatives he's trying to talk about are a) not something that can actually replace animal testing because they actually suppliment animal testing, or b) just aren't as good as animal testing. He claims: " I have a feeling animals DO NOT NEED" He's strawmanning my evidence here. I'm not saying we look at like genetic roots of animals by testing on them and that's how we help them. It's through animal testing that we can come up with medications and veterinary techniques that we can use to improve the lives of animals overall. I mean, unless my opponent wants to claim that over the thousands of years before they've made contact with humans that they don't get sick anymore... He claims: "But I personally believe animals has already done enough for us." This isn't responsive to my point. If animals have suffered, then we at least need to make sure that suffering is for some kind of point. Getting rid of animal testing means that they suffered for nothing. Instead though he wants to say that animals have given enough for us and are just going to accept that animals have suffered and don't have anything to show for it. 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." So this debate is really simple:First, he's never responded to the Murali evidence which is showing that alternatives to animal testing either a) don't work nearly as well as animal testing does, and/or b) it's not meant to replace animal testing, rather suppliment it. Don't let him finally put a response to it in the last round because that's unfair to me to have to respond to new arguments in the final round. This is going to be crucial because it just turns the debate into "Does animal testing give us things that are worth the cost".Second, I'm giving clear reasoning as to why animals don't actually have to suffer as a part of animal testing because we have these laws that help protect animals who are being tested on to make sure that they don't unduly suffer and that this suffering, if necessary, is done so humanely. All we need to do is enforce them and we solve a lot of the issue my opponent has. This turns the debate into "Does animal testing give us results".Third, my opponent hasn't made any kind of sufficient attempt at refuting the points I'm making that animal testing gives us valuable medical advances and medicines that we can use to not only better human life, but animal life as well. This means that there are clear beneficial impacts to keeping animal testing around.