Medical testing on animals does more good than harm.

This debate has been a very disappointing one. I am saddened by the fact that my first debate on Debate.org ended this way due to opponent's indifference towards the topic he himself posted. But again, regardless of my opponent's attitude, I briefly summarize and end this debate.CLASH ANALYSISThere was no clash whatsoever throughout the debate. The Instigator offered absolutely no rebuttal or argument which made this debate extremely one sided. Medical testing debate should have had clash on if benefits gained from sacrifices of animal lives worth it. Put simple the main debate should have been a morality vs practicality debate. On both spectrum of the argument, I have obviously won because I have explained how animal testing is immoral and also very impractical. Classicaly, on moral vs practical debate, one side pursues morality while other side pursues practicality and what makes these type of debate most interesting is both side endeavor to prove that their case is both moral and practical. I was expecting some harsh and bold argumentations regarding benefits that aniaml testing brings to us and how other alternatives cannot completely replace animal testing, hence animal testing worth the life. I also expected some points regarding how funerals of lab animals are led so the Pro can take the point on morality as well. But as shown, none of those efforts were made. I, for my part, prepared ethos attack on Pro and was ready to have a huge clash on practicality argument as well. For that, I have done some of my own reserach, sparing my time, unlike the Instigator who plainly considers this motion. SUMMARYThere is no need to even re-summarize my point becasue no attack was even attempted on them but I still will for the sake of formality and with slight hope that summarized version of my argumentation will not bore our opponent. Firstly, I gave slight emphasis on animal rights and how when there is an alternative, no sacrifice of animal lives should occur. Why do we want to kill animals when we have other samples we can carry our tests on? This was my morality argument that I consider could have developed more. Secondly, I gave my practicality argument, speaking under the assumption that EVEN IF, if we were to forsake morality (which we will never do anyways) animal testing is still purposeless. To support my stance on this, I gave countless examples and reasons why animal testing is inefficient, inaccruate, purposeless and has a potentail of exploitation. Massive amount of money and countless lives (human and animal) were sacrificed because of animal testing. As I have mentioned in my previous round whcih my opponent considered to be boring, the fourth leading cause of death in the US is unexpected side-effects of animal-teste drugs. I do not wish to go over details to prove that animal testing is very impractical again because I do not want to bore any readers. We all have seen so clearly it is very impractical. CONCLUSIONI just want to end this debate with a quote from Mark Twain: "I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't. ... The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further." The fact that experiments inflict excruciating pain on animals is enough to have animal-testing shut down immediately. But we human being still do things that are very inhumane because they have practical benefits. Or maybe it is just an excuse that we give. What we should do is try to stop immoral things no matter how much benefit they give us. That is what makes us different. So let me ask this question. So how about immoral things that harms us as well, that breaks families, tortures innocent animals and is used negatively as a mean to earn money? It is out of question. It shall stop. Thanks for reading. Ike Jin Park