This house would ban animal testing

This has been a great debate so far, and for that I have nothing but the highest respect for my opponent. I will start by refuting the oppositions arguments and then strengthen mine. He respectfully claims: The simple answer is to just make laws governing the treatment of animals more strict to ensure that no undue suffering is inflicted onto animals during testing and that, if some suffering must be inflicted, that a) it's done humanely and b) is done properly (i.e. we're not just randomly poking at animals with sticks to see what happens). And to this, I respond. Yes there is nothing that would make me happier than putting laws in place that govern safe treatment. But as I said in my last argument. 1) It's expensive 2) there are already laws in place (which very little takes seriously) and I even found alternative ways to replace animal testing such as "human tissues and cells" which are a) More accurate b) Easier to transport c) Not barbaric at the least! IF labs are willing to put in the extra money to fund secure and make sure "no undue suffering is inflicted" as my opponent has mentioned. Then that means they have the funds for new technology such as the one I mentioned, thus completely eliminating the need for animal research. " there's no reason this unnecessary suffering has to occur" I agree! let's switch to human cell/tissue research! He then secondly refers back to his evidence posted in the 1st argument and says how by researching animals not only are we helping humans, we are also helping animals. Which is a valid point. But considering animals has been doing just fine for thousands of years before they've made contacts with humans, I have a feeling animals DO NOT NEED our help on finding out information about themselves and the chain of evolution has been doing fine before animal experimentation. Third he mentions how "By just denying animal experimentation and just leaving current projects in stand-still, it makes all the suffering of animals that has brought them to this point in vain." But I personally believe animals has already done enough for us. And it's time we started giving back, firstly by eliminating animal experimentation. His last claim is the fact that he has a problem with my sources and questions the reliability of it. But I can assure my opponent that all of my information has been cross checked and approved. This debate really comes down to a clear decision. We have the technology, We more or less have the money, and no matter how many air tight laws and regulations we put in, it doesn't change the fact that animals will always suffer, that's to assume people will even follow these regulations and put in the money/effort. There is NO doubt, and I encourage my opponent to quote me on this. There is NO doubt that medical advances has been made, thanks to animal experimentation. But simply put we live in a different time than 100 years ago, heck we live in different time than 5 years ago, that's how fast technology is improving. And I strongly feel that with new technology, it's only logical to replace our old ways of research and replace them with new, reliable, and more accurate ones. Animals has contributed enough for mankind and it's time we started to pay them back, slowly but surely. 1. http://www.neavs.org...