Resolved:The US should allow animal testing...If its for scientific reasons only

Let's cut to the chase: My opponent contends that we get many medical advances from testing. For starters, I'd like to point out that my opponent has literally copy/pasted info from the site he's given. I hope this does not contend any unqualification on his/her part. To test this point, let me ask my opponent this question- what does cloning a sheep have to do with inserting a human gene into a sheep? Or speaking to your general argument, how does cloning allow us to produce medicines? My opponent does make good points. I have researched each of his lists and indeed all of them are accurate. But the real question everyone should be asking themselves is just how bad are these diseases? Let me use the modern-example of AIDS. Terrible disease with no cure. My opponent contends that by animal testing we would be able to save the 25 million who die each year from it, and he would be very well true. However, does he take into account other factors? AIDS is only an epidemic in Africa. If this was a pandemic I'd understand, but the fact that it's only a big problem in Africa proves something- there are other factors at play. The primary one is poverty. With poverty, you have all these issues (poor sanitation, bacteria-infested water, poor [if any] healthcare, etc. .. ) that create this environment where the HIV can thrive. This was the same case in all those vaccination examples you posted- the problem wasn't the disease, it was the conditions of the nation at the time. Heck, doctors were often times sharing needles, bandages, and medical tools between patients without washing them. Animal testing costs about $12-$16 billion dollars a year (and yes, I am using PETA's estimates unfortunately, but I trust their verification). $5 billion is all it would take to end poverty in a nation/jumpstart it towards industrialization (Living in the Environment AP edition, Chapter 6). Why should we be wasting money on animal testing when we can spend less on ending poverty in these areas? My opponent's next argument is about knowledge. Now, I am a bit skeptical on how much knowledge humanity should attain, but in the end I will propose this question- why should we torture innocents to get this knowledge when we have plenty of alternatives to this? I will quote this passage from PETA's site (I actually can verify the claims made in this, but they summarized it better then I can): "Human clinical and epidemiological studies, human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers, sophisticated high-fidelity human patient simulators and computational models are more reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane than animal experiments. Progressive scientists have used human brain cells to develop a model "microbrain," which can be used to study tumors, as well as artificial skin and bone marrow. We can now test irritancy on protein membranes, produce and test vaccines using human tissues, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples instead of killing rabbits. Animal experiments don"t persist because they are the best science, they persist because of experimenters" personal biases and archaic traditions. " Animal experimentation is a thing of the past. As the United States of America, we have an obligation to move forward and lead other nations in a new path. I eagerly await my opponents response. Good luck mate!