Animal testing should be banned

I'm assuming two things right now:1. That it's okay to post arguments in the first round, since my opponent has done the same thing2. That my opponent made a mistake when choosing sides, and would actually like to debate the pro side of the resolution.So voters, please acknowledge that my opponent is taking the PRO side of the resolution, and I will be defending the CON side of the resolution. Let's not get the debate sidetracked by a silly mistake like that.Also, the burden of proof will be on my opponent for a) instigating the debate and b) advocating for a change in the status quo. So I'll spend my time refuting his arguments. If he cannot prove why we should ban animal testing, then you negate the resolution and vote con (which means pro). With that, I thank my opponent and wish him luck. Without further adeiu, let's get this rolling.My opponent said "first reason is that animal testing is cruel process,">> The problem with this is that just because something is cruel now, doesn't mean the concept of it is cruel. People being cruel to animals isn't a reason to ban animal testing, but rather a reason to improve the process of animal testing to be more humane to animals. For example, instead of sticking them in cages, we could house them in facilities specially designed to resemble their natural habitat. Instead of brutally slaughtering those that we don't need, we could either euthenize them humanely or release them back into their natural habitat whenever we are done with them. I'll concede that the current process of animal testing isn't exactly stellar, but a few bad apples isn't a good enough reason to throw out the entire crop. We can refine our process to make it more fair to them while still accomplishing what we need to accomplish. My opponent said "also there consuptions of natural exists.">> I'm a little confused by what my opponent is trying to say here. I would like it if he would clarify in future rounds as to what he means by this, so I can address it properly.My opponent said "And it is too risky to trust these experements, because the organizms and body structures of animals are different than people's,">> This actually isn't true. The human body and psyche has so much in common with animals that we don't even know how much in common we are, and are constantly learning new things every day. But some of the things we DO know are:1. Humans and chimpanzee's are genetically 96% the same.(1)(2)2. Chimpanzee's brain patterns are similar to human brain patterns when attempting to communicate.(2)3. Chimpanzees are capable of handling tools much like we do.(2)4. Humans and Chimpanzees have the same emotional actions and responses.(3) So because we have so much in common physically, mentally, and emotionally with animals such as the chimpanzee, we are able to rely on test results to a fair degree of certainty. Of course there are exceptions to this, but on the grander scale most test results involving animals as human surrogates are accurate and sound.My opponent said "The government should ban animal testing, because they could find alternatives">> I don't think that just because there's an alternative to some action, we have reason to ban the action taking place currently. For example, the vast majority of people who travel to and from work, school, stores, or any other place generally use some form of automotive vehicle (also known in plain English as a car). But there are plenty of alternatives to driving a car to and from places: we could walk, ride a bike or skateboard, ride a horse, or even bounce on a pogo stick in the direction of where we want to go. But the fact that those alternatives exist are not reason in and of themselves to ban using cars to go places. My opponent said "nowadays there are modern technologies which could make better and trustable drugs.">> While this is certainly true (I would be a fool to try to argue that technology wasn't improving in some way), improving technology does not automatically bring about improving medication. We would still need some medium of testing the product to ensure that it was safe before we could sell it to the public, and that brings us right back to animals. Therefore, the resolution is negated, as my opponent has thus-far failed to uphold his Burden of Proof. Sources:(1) - http://news.nationalgeographic.com...(2) - http://www.livescience.com...(3) - http://phys.org...;