Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found.

Thank you, Beginner. This round is for rebuttals.http://www.youtube.com... ==Rebuttal 1: Brief Appeal to Authority - Why Animal Testing is Irreplaceable==Firstly, my opponent admittedly states that he is briefly using Appeal to Authority. Although this is a logical fallacy, that isn't the only one Con is using. The very fact that this piece of evidence is based on the majority wins rule makes it Ad Populum, another logical fallacy. Just because many people agree with something does not mean it is right. Although there is some justification that it is effective, it does not really help much at all with his case."There is simply no substitute for animal testing." - OpponentThis is untrue. Alternatives are already being found, and more future ones are being thought of and considered [1-6]. I will show these in my fourth rebuttal.Plus, human testing is another alternative to animal testing. If we can easily find effective treatments that work only on non-human animals, why can't we do the same with humans, and find cures more quickly that way?"“There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans. It is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to humans due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.”" - Neavs, MacLennan and Ammos [3][7]"Mice and chimpanzees, for example, share 98-99% of a human’s genetic makeup." - OpponentHere we are talking about how humans and non-human animals have different internal immune systems and system structure, not about the genetic makeup, which defines what a living thing looks like. Thus this is irrelevant."Animals are the only subjects other than human beings with similar enough systemic constitutions to give us our best comparative data." - OpponentAgain, this is blatantly false. The alternatives that have been found and even the ones that are being considered for the future are proven to predict human reactions better than animal testing [6]."These modern methods are more relevant to humans and have been found to predict human reactions better than the traditional outdated animal tests." - Cruelty-free International [6]"We shouldn’t be seeking an alternative because there is no alternative." - OpponentSee above. The fact that we have many ideas and even actual alternatives completely disproves this statement, and thus *most* of Con's case is debunked.Also, I want to make this clear. An alternative is different to a replacement because alternatives are not permanent changes to the status quo, and we can alternate through alternatives. A replacement is permanent, or at least they last longer as changes. Literally the resolution only looks for a choice that should be prioritize when available.==Rebuttal 2: The importance of Animal Testing: An anecdote==My adversary's entire contention relies on one single event, yet he attempts to use this to prove his entire case correct. But this is completely irrelevant. What my opponent needs is statistics instead of single anecdotes. You can't declare animal testing as irreplaceable just because out of countless animal experiments scientists have found several cures or treatments for human diseases. It just doesn't make sense.Rather than relying on a form of experimentation that barely gives you a percentage of success out of total tests, we should rely on alternatives that are much more trustworthy and productive. Literally it's a similar thing with sourcing in a debate; you should rely on actually reliable links and sources, not sources that barely even do anything to help your case. We should do the best to find more trustworthy forms of biomedical experimentation.Both my adversary and I agree that we need to find the most reliable form of experimentation. Where we disagree is which form of experimentation that is. ==Rebuttal 3: Who benefits?==My opponent's third contention relies on how much animal testing has helped in biomedical research. What he does not realize is that with alternatives we could do even more than the things he's listed. Let's reiterate a quote shown above:"These modern methods are more relevant to humans and have been found to predict human reactions better than the traditional outdated animal tests." - Cruelty-free International [6]Obviously if we have achieved so much with animal testing and yet we have found and have ideas of better methods, it would only be extremely beneficial to switch to those alternatives when available."Of course, unless you preferred we tested hip replacements, organ transplants, anaesthesia etc. on humans, non-animal alternatives such as cultured petri-dish cells aren’t going to help you find out the after-effects and survivability of animals after such operations. There’s just no practical way we can replace the functionalities of a live animal." - OpponentIf my opponent believes that we should prefer animal tests over human tests because there is no risk of human death, but that we can let the animals die instead, then I blatantly disagree with the ethics here, but so be it. However the fact that there are even alternatives and ideas of alternatives other than human testing debunks this entire statement.Even so, the resolution states that we should find an *alternative*, not *replacement*. As shown above, these are two different things. Although some dictionaries mark them as synonymous, Google defines them differently.Alternative: an available possibility. [8]Replacement: something that takes place of another thing. [9]Literally we are talking about alternatives as available possibilities, to which my opponent agreed in round one. We are not talking about alternatives as replacements for animal testing, because we are not talking about taking down animal testing in any sense. The resolution only requires Pro to state why we should have another choice other than animal testing.==Rebuttal 4: An Alternative to Animal Testing?=="In order to monitor results of testing on a living system, a living system must be tested on." - OpponentThis isn't false, but it isn't entirely true either. Here I will list the alternatives and future alternatives to animal testing: Computer modeling [1-4], a type of experimentation which simulates human disease and helps scientists understand how different things can be used to treat sicknesses. Cell and Tissue culturing [1-4], a form of biomedical research where cells and tissue are cultured. This has helped to create monoclonal antibodies [10]. In Vitro testing [1-3], also known as organs on chips. It involves human cells being grown to mimic human organ structure. According to Wikipedia, this is considered to be a future method which will soon be used. BONUS: Watch Video [11]. Microdosing [2][3], when a very small dose of a drug is inserted into a human body to look at how the body metabolizes it without risking the person's entire body, before testing on large scale human tests. Literally, these are only a few of the alternatives and ideas for alternatives that have been brought up. Thus once again my opponent's statement has been debunked."Our only option, in order to duplicate results obtained from animal testing, is to test on some other living thing." - OpponentFalse. Again I have already stated and listed the alternatives above, and a few of them do not rely on actual animals."But here we stumble upon a contradictory problem: all living things are animals." - OpponentAgain this is false. It seems that my opponent is trying to strawman out of this debate with completely false fallacies. For example, plants are living organisms, but they aren't animals. Technically a cell is a living organism, but it isn't an animal. This brings us to stem cell research [3], another proposed alternative."We test on rats and other mammals because these mammals are the closest things to the homo sapien sapien other than the homo sapien sapiens themselves." - OpponentYes, but that doesn't mean they are as reliable as the alternatives proposed above. These alternatives, as shown above, have been proven to be more effective in predicting human reactions than animal testing."The only other alternative we have to replace animals, who already replace human beings, is to artificially create some living thing which replicates mammalian living functions; to genetically engineer another living thing." - OpponentSee above. The rest of this contention is debunked just by me having listed the proposed alternatives.==Rebuttal 5: Trial and Error rule==My opponent's last contention defends the fact that experiments such as animal tests are meant to fail in some cases, because that is what an experiment is. However, that doesn't make a difference. Although the alternatives above must fail at least sometimes, again they have been shown to fail less and succeed more. It is only right to prefer the more accurate tests over less accurate ones.==Conclusion==I have refuted all my opponent's contentions.The resolution remains affirmed.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://www.peta.org...;[3] http://www.neavs.org...;[4] http://cfhs.ca...;[5] http://www.humanesociety.org...;[6] http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org...;[7] MacLennan & Amos. (1990). Clinical Science Research Ltd., UK, Cosmetics and Toiletries Manufacturers and Suppliers, XVII, 24.[8]https://www.google.com.vn...[9]https://www.google.com.vn...[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...[11] ;